No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 7 tools
Each tool has a recognizable specialization: summary, rule-based linting, trigger explanation, token permissions, job dependency graph, action pinning, and fix diffs. There is mild overlap where workflows_overview already reports permissions and pinned/unpinned actions that permissions_review and pin_actions_plan dig into, and lint_workflows also flags unpinned actions and permission issues. The descriptions make clear which is the deep-dive versus the summary, so misselection is unlikely but not impossible.
All names are snake_case and readable, but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: verb_noun in lint_workflows, explain_triggers, pin_actions_plan, fix_preview, versus noun_verb in workflows_overview and permissions_review, plus the bare noun job_graph. An agent can still infer behavior, but there is no single predictable pattern.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each one maps to a distinct analysis concern of a GitHub Actions auditing server. No tool feels redundant padding or conspicuously absent from the set.
The surface covers the full read-only audit lifecycle: inventory, linting, trigger semantics, permissions, dependency graph, pinning plan, and a fix diff with re-lint verification. The main gap is that fix_preview never applies changes and there is no write/apply tool, so remediation is a manual dead end by design; cross-file or multi-repo bulk analysis is also absent. These are workaroundable but limit end-to-end automation.