Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Configure GitHub Advanced Security with CodeQL to perform automated static analysis and vulnerability detection across repositories at enterprise scale.
.claude/skills/implementing-github-advanced-security-for-code-scanning/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-20 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-09 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-11 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-17 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
GitHub Advanced Security (GHAS) integrates CodeQL-powered static application security testing directly into the GitHub development workflow. CodeQL treats code as data, enabling semantic analysis that identifies security vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting, buffer overflows, and authentication flaws with significantly fewer false positives than traditional pattern-matching scanners. GHAS encompasses code scanning, secret scanning, dependency review, and Dependabot alerts to provide a comprehensive security posture for repositories.
CodeQL compiles source code into a queryable database, then executes security-focused queries against that database. The query suites ship with hundreds of checks mapped to CWE identifiers and cover OWASP Top 10, SANS Top 25, and language-specific vulnerability patterns. Custom queries can be authored using the CodeQL query language (QL) to detect organization-specific anti-patterns.
Default Setup enables code scanning with a single click from the repository's Code Security settings. GitHub automatically determines the languages present, selects appropriate query suites, and configures scanning triggers. This approach requires no workflow file and is ideal for rapid onboarding.
Advanced Setup generates a .github/workflows/codeql.yml workflow file that can be customized. Teams control scheduling, language matrices, build commands for compiled languages, additional query packs, and integration with third-party SARIF producers. Advanced setup is required when custom build steps, monorepo configurations, or private query packs are needed.
For enterprises managing hundreds of repositories, GHAS supports configuring code scanning at scale using the organization-level security overview. Administrators can enable default setup across all eligible repositories, define custom security configurations, and monitor adoption through the security coverage dashboard.
Create .github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml:
yamlname: "CodeQL Analysis" on: push: branches: [main, develop] pull_request: branches: [main] schedule: - cron: '30 2 * * 1' # Weekly Monday 2:30 AM UTC jobs: analyze: name: Analyze (${{ matrix.language }}) runs-on: ubuntu-latest permissions: security-events: write contents: read actions: read strategy: fail-fast: false matrix: language: ['javascript-typescript', 'python', 'java-kotlin'] steps: - name: Checkout repository uses: actions/checkout@v4 - name: Initialize CodeQL uses: github/codeql-action/init@v3 with: languages: ${{ matrix.language }} queries: +security-extended,security-and-quality # For compiled languages, add build commands below - name: Autobuild uses: github/codeql-action/autobuild@v3 - name: Perform CodeQL Analysis uses: github/codeql-action/analyze@v3 with: category: "/language:${{ matrix.language }}"
Install organization-specific query packs by referencing them in the workflow:
yaml- name: Initialize CodeQL uses: github/codeql-action/init@v3 with: languages: java-kotlin packs: | my-org/java-custom-queries@1.0.0 codeql/java-queries:cwe/cwe-089
.github/dependabot.yml for automated dependency version updates| Suite | Description | Use Case | |-------|-------------|----------| | default | High-confidence security queries | Production scanning with minimal false positives | | security-extended | Broader security queries including lower-severity findings | Comprehensive security coverage | | security-and-quality | Security plus code quality queries | Teams wanting both security and maintainability checks | | Custom packs | Organization-authored queries | Detecting internal anti-patterns and compliance violations |
GHAS accepts SARIF (Static Analysis Results Interchange Format) uploads from external tools:
yaml- name: Upload SARIF uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v3 with: sarif_file: results.sarif category: "semgrep"
The organization-level security overview provides:
/repos/{owner}/{repo}/code-scanning/alerts) for custom reporting dashboardsdefault suite and expand gradually to avoid developer alert fatigue| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of 0 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.