ci: add gitleaks secret-scan job (compliance #171) by don-petry · Pull Request #215 · petry-projects/google-app-scripts

don-petry · 2026-04-19T21:38:49Z

Summary

Adds the required secret-scan job to .github/workflows/ci.yml per the org push-protection standard
Resolves the secret_scan_ci_job_present compliance finding from issue Compliance: secret_scan_ci_job_present #171
Pins both actions to SHA per the Action Pinning Policy

What was added

secret-scan:
  name: Secret scan (gitleaks)
  runs-on: ubuntu-latest
  permissions:
    contents: read
    security-events: write
  steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2
      with:
        fetch-depth: 0
    - uses: gitleaks/gitleaks-action@ff98106e4c7b2bc287b24eaf42907196329070c7 # v2.3.9
      env:
        GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
        GITLEAKS_LICENSE: ${{ secrets.GITLEAKS_LICENSE }}

Why this PR over #198

PR #198 had the correct action reference but CI failed because GITLEAKS_LICENSE was not passed in the env: block. gitleaks-action@v2 requires this for organization repos. This PR adds GITLEAKS_LICENSE: ${{ secrets.GITLEAKS_LICENSE }} — if the org secret is configured, CI will pass.

If CI still fails on "Secret scan (gitleaks)": the GITLEAKS_LICENSE secret needs to be added at the org or repo level (obtain from gitleaks.io).

Compliance check satisfied

The weekly audit greps for uses: gitleaks/gitleaks-action@ in ci.yml — this PR satisfies that check.

Closes #171

Generated with Claude Code

Adds the required `secret-scan` job per the org push-protection standard (standards/push-protection.md#layer-3--ci-secret-scanning-secondary-defense). The job: - Checks out full git history (fetch-depth: 0) for complete scan coverage - Runs gitleaks/gitleaks-action@v2.3.9 pinned to SHA ff98106e4c7b2bc287b24eaf42907196329070c7 - Passes --redact to prevent secrets appearing in logs - Passes --exit-code 1 to fail the build on any finding - Passes GITLEAKS_LICENSE from secrets to satisfy the org-repo license requirement (prior attempt PR #198 omitted this env var, causing the CI failure) Resolves the `secret_scan_ci_job_present` compliance finding. Co-authored-by: don-petry <don-petry@users.noreply.github.com>

coderabbitai · 2026-04-19T21:38:56Z

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@github-actions[bot] has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 46 minutes and 15 seconds before requesting another review.

Your organization is not enrolled in usage-based pricing. Contact your admin to enable usage-based pricing to continue reviews beyond the rate limit, or try again in 46 minutes and 15 seconds.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: a9a755f8-1000-43bb-ac1e-b1ffc2f58b3c

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 32e618b and 5b38a3a.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

.github/workflows/ci.yml

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Commit unit tests in branch claude/issue-171-20260419-2133

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

sonarqubecloud · 2026-04-19T21:39:43Z

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

don-petry · 2026-04-19T21:41:16Z

@don-petry — this PR implements the secret-scan job per the org standard and satisfies the secret_scan_ci_job_present compliance check. However, there is an infrastructure blocker preventing CI from passing.

CI failure: missing GITLEAKS_LICENSE

gitleaks-action@v2 requires a paid GITLEAKS_LICENSE for organization repos. The secret is not configured at the org or repo level:

[petry-projects] is an organization. License key is required.
🛑 missing gitleaks license. Go grab one at gitleaks.io

To unblock

Obtain a GITLEAKS_LICENSE from gitleaks.io (free tier available for open-source)
Add it as an org-level secret: Org settings → Secrets and variables → Actions → New organization secret named GITLEAKS_LICENSE
Re-run the failed "Secret scan (gitleaks)" job — it will pass once the secret is available
Merge this PR

Once merged, the secret_scan_ci_job_present compliance finding on issue #171 will be resolved on the next weekly audit.

Note: PRs #190 and #198 are superseded by this one and can be closed.

Copilot

Pull request overview

Adds a new CI job to run Gitleaks secret scanning to satisfy org push-protection compliance requirements and address issue #171.

Changes:

Add a secret-scan job to .github/workflows/ci.yml using gitleaks/gitleaks-action with SHA-pinned actions.
Configure full-history checkout and run gitleaks detect with redaction and failure on findings.
Pass GITLEAKS_LICENSE via workflow env (alongside GITHUB_TOKEN).

Copilot · 2026-04-19T21:41:36Z

+  secret-scan:
+    name: Secret scan (gitleaks)
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    permissions:
+      contents: read
+      security-events: write


On pull_request events from forks, secrets.GITLEAKS_LICENSE will not be available and the GITHUB_TOKEN cannot be granted security-events: write, so this job is likely to fail for fork PRs (the rest of this workflow already has fork-specific handling). Consider adding an if: guard to run this job only on pushes and same-repo PRs, or otherwise skipping/uploading conditionally when the license/token permissions aren’t available.

Copilot · 2026-04-19T21:41:36Z

+        # Pin to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).
+        # Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'
+        uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2
+        with:
+          fetch-depth: 0
+
+      - name: Run gitleaks
+        # Pinned to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).


The pinning-policy reference points to ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy, but this repository doesn’t contain ci-standards.md. Update the comment to reference an existing doc/location (e.g., the org standards link in AGENTS.md) or remove it to avoid a dead reference.

Suggested change

# Pin to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).

# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'

uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2

with:

fetch-depth: 0

- name: Run gitleaks

# Pinned to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).

# Pin to a commit SHA.

# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'

uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2

with:

fetch-depth: 0

- name: Run gitleaks

# Pin to a commit SHA.

Copilot · 2026-04-19T21:41:37Z

+    steps:
+      - name: Checkout (full history)
+        # Pin to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).
+        # Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'


The "Look up current SHA" command references tags/v4, but the workflow is using an action version comment of v6.0.2 (and elsewhere in the repo actions/checkout is annotated as v6). Update the tag in the lookup command (or the version annotation) so maintainers fetch the correct SHA when refreshing pins.

Suggested change

# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'

# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v6.0.2 --jq '.object.sha'

Copilot · 2026-04-19T21:41:37Z

+        # Pin to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).
+        # Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'
+        uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2
+        with:
+          fetch-depth: 0
+
+      - name: Run gitleaks
+        # Pinned to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).


This pinning-policy comment again references ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy, which doesn’t exist in this repo. Align the reference with an existing standard/documentation source so future updates don’t dead-end.

Suggested change

# Pin to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).

# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'

uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2

with:

fetch-depth: 0

- name: Run gitleaks

# Pinned to SHA per Action Pinning Policy (ci-standards.md#action-pinning-policy).

# Pin to a full commit SHA per GitHub Actions security hardening guidance:

# https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-for-github-actions/security-guides/security-hardening-for-github-actions

# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'

uses: actions/checkout@de0fac2e4500dabe0009e67214ff5f5447ce83dd # v6.0.2

with:

fetch-depth: 0

- name: Run gitleaks

# Pinned to a full commit SHA per GitHub Actions security hardening guidance:

# https://docs.github.com/en/actions/security-for-github-actions/security-guides/security-hardening-for-github-actions

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 19, 2026 21:38

don-petry mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2026

Compliance: secret_scan_ci_job_present #171

Open

Copilot started reviewing on behalf of don-petry April 19, 2026 21:39 View session

Copilot AI reviewed Apr 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into claude/issue-171-20260419-2133

5b38a3a

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

ci: add gitleaks secret-scan job (compliance #171)#215

ci: add gitleaks secret-scan job (compliance #171)#215
don-petry wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
claude/issue-171-20260419-2133

don-petry commented Apr 19, 2026

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Rate limit exceeded

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud Bot commented Apr 19, 2026

Uh oh!

don-petry commented Apr 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

	# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v4 --jq '.object.sha'
	# Look up current SHA: gh api repos/actions/checkout/git/refs/tags/v6.0.2 --jq '.object.sha'

Conversation

don-petry commented Apr 19, 2026

Summary

What was added

Why this PR over #198

Compliance check satisfied

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Rate limit exceeded

Uh oh!

sonarqubecloud Bot commented Apr 19, 2026

Quality Gate passed

Uh oh!

don-petry commented Apr 19, 2026

CI failure: missing GITLEAKS_LICENSE

To unblock

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull request overview

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Apr 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

coderabbitai Bot commented Apr 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading