invalidate-security-issue

name	invalidate-security-issue
description	Close an `<tracker>` tracking issue as invalid: apply the `invalid` label, remove the scope label, post a short closing comment, archive the item from the project board, and — for trackers imported from `<security-list>` — draft a polite-but-firm reply to the reporter on the original Gmail thread explaining the team's reasoning (extracted from the tracker's discussion). For trackers opened via `import-security-issue-from-pr`, the email-draft step is skipped per the *no outreach to the PR author* rule of that skill.
when_to_use	Invoke when a security team member says "close NN as invalid", "invalidate NN", "mark NN invalid", "NN is not a security issue" — typically after a Step 5 consensus-invalid decision in the issue's discussion. Not appropriate when the team has not yet reached consensus, when a CVE has already been allocated (a separate Vulnogram REJECT flow is required first), or when the advisory has already shipped (closing as invalid then is a retraction with public consequences and needs explicit team escalation).

invalidate-security-issue

This skill is the terminal-disposition apply step for the invalid close on an <tracker> tracker. It does not host the discussion that decides invalidity — that happens at Step 5 of the handling process in the tracker's comments. Once the team has reached a consensus-invalid decision, this skill applies it: labels the tracker invalid, posts a short public-facing closing comment, closes the tracker, archives the project-board item, and (for security@-imported trackers) drafts a reply to the reporter explaining why.

It is the symmetric counterpart of allocate-cve (apply step for the valid → CVE path). Both skills assume the validity decision has already been reached; they wire that decision into the tracker state in one pass.

Golden rule — never sends email. Any reply to the reporter is created as a Gmail draft on the original inbound thread. The triager reviews the draft in Gmail before sending. The skill must not call send on any drafting backend.

Golden rule — public-facing comment is brief. The closing comment posted on the public-by-collaborator-access tracker is short and process-shaped ("closing as invalid per team consensus in this thread"); the team's full reasoning lives in the discussion comments and the rollup. The detailed reasoning belongs in the email draft to the reporter (where it actually serves a purpose), not in a closing comment that re-packages the same material.

Golden rule — no outreach to PR-imported tracker authors. When the tracker came in via import-security-issue-from-pr (detected by the N/A — opened from public PR … sentinel in the Security mailing list thread body field), there is no reporter to notify — the PR author is not the CVE reporter and the public PR stays unaware of the CVE process per that skill's policy. Skip the email-draft step entirely; do not comment on the public PR; do not reach out to the PR author through any channel.

---

Prerequisites

Before running, the skill needs:

• gh CLI authenticated with collaborator access to <tracker> and access to the project-board mutations (addProjectV2ItemById, updateProjectV2ItemFieldValue, archiveProjectV2Item). The skill calls gh issue view, gh issue edit, gh issue comment, gh issue close, and gh api graphql.
• Gmail MCP connected (only required when the tracker is security@-imported and a draft reply is to be created). Without Gmail, the skill can still close the tracker — but it surfaces the missing draft as a follow-up the user must do manually before the close is fully complete.

See Prerequisites for running the agent skills in README.md for overall setup and the oauth_curl vs claude_ai_mcp precedence rule for the Gmail draft path.

---

Step 0 — Pre-flight check

Before any work, verify:

1. gh is authenticated and has access. Run gh api repos/<tracker> --jq .name; on 401 / 403 / 404, stop and tell the user to log in or get added.

2. The tracker number is parseable. Accept any of:

   User input	Resolved tracker
   240	<tracker>#240
   <tracker>#240	<tracker>#240 (require repo == <tracker>)
   https://github.com/<tracker>/issues/240	<tracker>#240

3. Hard-stop blockers (apply before doing any other work):

   Detected state	Stop reason
   cve allocated label set, or CVE tool link body field populated with a CVE-ID URL	Closing as invalid requires the CVE record to be marked REJECTED in Vulnogram first. That is a separate flow (PMC-gated, similar to allocation). Stop and surface the URL of the CVE tool link alongside a one-line ask: "This tracker has CVE <CVE-ID> allocated. Reject the CVE in Vulnogram first, then re-invoke this skill."
   fix released, announced - emails sent, or announced label set	The advisory has already shipped (or is mid-flight). Closing as invalid retroactively is a retraction with public consequences. Stop and surface a one-line ask: "This tracker is past pr merged (label: <label>). Closing as invalid here would retract a published advisory; escalate to the team before re-invoking."
   Tracker is already closed	No-op; surface the existing close reason and stop.

   Both hard stops are deliberate — the skill must not paper over a CVE-allocation or a published-advisory state by silently labelling and closing.

If gh fails or any hard stop fires, do not proceed.

---

Step 1 — Fetch tracker state

Pull everything the rest of the skill needs in one gh issue view:

gh issue view <N> --repo <tracker> --json \
    number,title,body,labels,state,milestone,assignees,comments,url \
  > /tmp/invalidate-<N>.json

Record into the observed-state bag:

• tracker.number, tracker.url, tracker.title, tracker.state (must be OPEN to proceed).
• tracker.labels[].name — used to detect hard-stop conditions (Step 0) and to decide which scope label to remove (Step 5a).
• tracker.body — parsed for the Security mailing list thread, PR with the fix, CVE tool link, Reporter credited as, and Affected versions fields.
• tracker.comments[] — mined for the team's invalidity reasoning (Step 3).
• tracker.milestone.title — informational only; stays as-is.
• tracker.assignees[].login — informational only; stays as-is.

Re-check the hard stops from Step 0 against the freshly-fetched labels and body fields, in case the user invoked from stale state.

---

Step 2 — Detect import path

The tracker's import path drives whether an email draft is part of the close. Read the Security mailing list thread body field:

Body field shape	Import path	Email-draft step
Real lists.apache.org URL or any URL	security@-imported (public-archive case)	Draft on the original Gmail thread; locate via the rollup-comment threadId reference.
No public archive URL — tracked privately on Gmail thread <threadId> (sentinel from import-security-issue Step 7)	security@-imported (Gmail-only case)	Draft on the named <threadId>.
N/A — opened from public PR <upstream>#<N>; no security@ thread (sentinel from import-security-issue-from-pr)	PR-imported	Skip the email-draft step. No reporter exists to notify.
Empty / _No response_ / unrecognised	Indeterminate	Surface to the user; ask whether the tracker has a Gmail thread the skill should reply on, or whether the close is silent (no email).

For security@-imported trackers, locate the Gmail threadId:

1. Read the rollup comment on the tracker (the first <details> block with the <tracker> status rollup v1 marker). Look for threadId references in the Provenance: line of the import entry.
2. If the rollup is missing or thin, fall back to a Gmail subject search: mcp__claude_ai_Gmail__search_threads with the tracker title (or a distinctive phrase from the body). One match → use it; multiple → surface to user.
3. Capture tracker.threadId, tracker.reporterEmail (the From: of the inbound root message), and tracker.reporterName (used to address the reply).

---

Step 3 — Mine invalidity reasoning from the discussion

The team's reasoning is the load-bearing input for the email draft. Extract verbatim quotes the user can confirm before any draft is written.

Scan tracker.comments[] for posts that argue why the report is not a security issue. Strong signals:

• Citations of the the project's security model (full URL, anchor links, paraphrases).
• Phrases like "this is by design", "out of scope", "documented behavior", "requires X privileges already", "not a CVE", "not CVE worthy", "won't fix", "working as intended".
• Pointers to existing CVEs that already addressed the broader class (e.g. "already covered by CVE-2023-37379").
• Pointers to a documented mitigation the reporter missed (config flag, RBAC role, security-policy section).
• Counter-examples or PoC failures from team members trying to reproduce.

Surface the 3–5 most-load-bearing quotes verbatim, each with the comment author's handle and a clickable comment URL. Do not paraphrase — the user should be able to copy a quote into the email draft if it fits.

If no clear reasoning is present in the comments (e.g. the team discussed in chat and only landed a one-line "closing as invalid" on the tracker), surface this gap to the user with:

The tracker has no detailed reasoning in its public comments. The email draft will need a reason to communicate to the reporter. Options: (a) supply a one-paragraph reason inline (--reason "<text>"), (b) point me to a chat transcript / private GHSA comment to extract from, or (c) close silently with no reply (only appropriate when the tracker is security@-imported but the reporter is unreachable — flag this in the rollup so the gap is visible).

---

Step 4 — Match a canned-response template

The email draft is built canned-response-spine + augmentation, same pattern as import-security-issue Step 5. Read <project-config>/canned-responses.md and pick the section that best matches the invalidity reasoning mined in Step 3:

Reasoning shape	Canned section
Generic "after review, not CVE-worthy" with case-specific reasoning	Negative Assessment response (the HERE DETAILED EXPLANATION FOLLOWS placeholder is filled with the augmentation).
Dag-author-provided input is the attack vector	When someone claims Dag author-provided "user input" is dangerous.
DoS / RCE / arbitrary read via Connection configuration	DoS/RCE/Arbitrary read via Provider's Connection configuration.
Self-XSS by an authenticated user	Immediate response for self-XSS issues triggered by Authenticated users.
DoS triggered by an authenticated user (no privilege escalation)	DoS issues triggered by Authenticated users.
Parameter injection to operator/hook called by the dag author	Parameter injection to operator or hook.
Automated-scanner output without human-verified PoC	Automated scanning results.
Image / video reproducer instead of a written report	When someone submits a media report (or Or an alternative response).

If multiple canned sections apply, pick the most-specific one and note the others to the user; if none fits, default to Negative Assessment response with the team's reasoning filling the placeholder.

The skill must not invent a canned response or paraphrase one into the file. If the adopting project lacks a fitting template, surface the gap to the user — adding a canned response is a separate canned-responses.md PR, not part of this run.

---

Step 5 — Build the proposal

Surface every change to the user before any write.

5a — Labels

• Add: invalid.
• Remove: needs triage (if set), the scope label (airflow / providers / chart), and pr created / pr merged (if set — the public PR stays open as the contributor's normal-process work, but the tracker no longer treats it as the security fix).

The security issue label stays — it pins the tracker to the security project board's filter and keeps the tracker findable in future searches for invalid-class history.

5b — Closing comment on the tracker

Brief, process-shaped. Examples:

Closing as `invalid` per team consensus in [this discussion](#issuecomment-<id>).

Reasoning summary in the [status rollup](#issuecomment-<rollup-id>); a draft reply to the reporter is in Gmail awaiting review.

For PR-imported trackers, replace "a draft reply to the reporter is in Gmail awaiting review" with "no reporter notification (PR-imported tracker — see the import-from-pr skill's Reporter credit policy)".

The comment links must resolve once the rollup entry from Step 5e has been posted (capture its URL and substitute before posting this closing comment, or post the rollup first and use its ID here).

5c — Project-board archive

Locate the project-board item ID:

gh api graphql -f query='
  query($pid:ID!,$nid:ID!) {
    node(id:$pid) {
      ... on ProjectV2 {
        items(first: 100) {
          nodes { id content { ... on Issue { number id } } }
        }
      }
    }
  }' \
  -F pid=PVT_kwDOCAwKzs4BUzbt \
  -F nid=<tracker-node-id> \
  --jq '.data.node.items.nodes[] | select(.content.number == <N>) | .id'

Then archive:

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($pid:ID!,$iid:ID!) {
    archiveProjectV2Item(input: { projectId: $pid, itemId: $iid }) {
      item { id isArchived }
    }
  }' \
  -F pid=PVT_kwDOCAwKzs4BUzbt \
  -F iid=<item-id>

archiveProjectV2Item (not deleteProjectV2Item) — archiving preserves the item's history in the board's archived view; the team can still find old invalid trackers via the Archived items filter when they need precedent for a similar future close. Deletion would lose that history.

If the tracker is not on the board (no rows returned by the introspection query), skip the archive step and note in the rollup that the item was already absent from the board (an Auto-add workflow gap or a manual prior removal — surface as informational, not a blocker).

5d — Email draft (security@-imported only)

Skip this entire substep when the import path detected in Step 2 is PR-imported.

For security@-imported trackers:

1. Recipients:
   • toRecipients: tracker.reporterEmail (the From: of the inbound root message). If the import was via the ASF-security relay path (the From: is a @apache.org forwarder, not the external reporter), reply to the forwarder per the ASF-security relay convention in import-security-issue Step 7.
   • ccRecipients: always includes <security-list> (<security-list> for the adopting project) — value comes from <project-config>/project.md.
2. Subject: Re: <root subject>. Never invent a fresh subject — the reply lands on the inbound thread (when oauth_curl is the backend) or is subject-matched into it (when claude_ai_mcp is the backend).
3. Body:
   • Spine: the canned section picked in Step 4, verbatim.
   • Augmentation: a clearly-marked block filling the HERE DETAILED EXPLANATION FOLLOWS placeholder (or equivalent) with the case-specific reasoning gathered in Step 3. Use the same > **[Inline addition for this report]** block convention as import-security-issue Step 5 — the user must be able to delete the augmentation cleanly without leaving a grammatical orphan.
   • No mention of <tracker>. The tracker repo is private; the reporter has no access; references would leak. Cite the public Security Model and any public CVEs instead.
   • Polite-but-firm. Per AGENTS.md, state the team's position once, clearly, with reasoning. Do not re-open the discussion with phrases like "happy to discuss further" — close the loop.
4. Backend selection: probe for oauth_curl credentials first (default path ~/.config/apache-steward/gmail-oauth.json) per ; fall back to (subject-matched) when credentials are not on disk.

5e — Status-rollup entry

Append a new <details> block to the existing rollup comment (per tools/github/status-rollup.md upsert recipe). Shape:

<details><summary><YYYY-MM-DD> · @<author-handle> · Closed as invalid</summary>

**Closed as `invalid` on <YYYY-MM-DD>** (decided in [comment](#issuecomment-<id>)).

**Reasoning** (verbatim from the team's discussion, capped at ~5 quotes):

- @<author>: > <quote 1> ([source](#issuecomment-<id>))
- @<author>: > <quote 2> ([source](#issuecomment-<id>))
- ...

**Canned response selected:** *<canned section name>* in [`canned-responses.md`](https://github.com/<tracker>/blob/<tracker-default-branch>/<project-config>/canned-responses.md#<anchor>).

**Reporter notification:** <one of:>
- **`security@`-imported:** Gmail draft `<draftId>` created on thread  — awaiting user review.
  none (no reporter; per []()).
  none (flag from Step 2 surfaced; user explicitly chose silent close).

 archived (item ).

 none — terminal disposition.

Zero-whitespace rules from status-rollup.md apply. The reasoning quotes section is trimmed to ~5 entries even when more material exists in the discussion — the rollup is a navigation aid, not an archive.

5f — Confirmation forms

Surface the full proposal — labels, closing comment, archive target, email draft (when applicable, fully rendered), rollup entry — and ask:

• go / proceed / yes — apply as proposed.
• email: <freeform> — replace the email-draft body with the user's text (skill still wraps with subject + recipients; user is overriding only the body).
• canned: <section name> — re-pick the canned response and re-augment.
• silent — for an security@-imported tracker, deliberately skip the email draft and note in the rollup why (e.g. the reporter is unreachable, GHSA closed, etc.).
• cancel / none — bail; nothing applied.

The user must confirm explicitly. Unlike import-security-issue, this skill does not default to apply — the close is a terminal disposition and the email draft is a public message attributed to the security team. One round of confirmation is the right trade.

---

Step 6 — Apply

Sequenced. Each substep depends on the previous one.

6a — Post the rollup entry first

Posting the rollup before the closing comment lets the closing comment link to the rollup's permalink. Append to the existing rollup comment via the upsert recipe in status-rollup.md:

EXISTING=$(gh api repos/<tracker>/issues/comments/<rollup-comment-id> --jq .body)
cat > /tmp/invalidate-<N>-rollup.md <<EOF
${EXISTING}

<new <details> block from Step 5e>
EOF
gh api -X PATCH repos/<tracker>/issues/comments/<rollup-comment-id> \
  -F body=@/tmp/invalidate-<N>-rollup.md \
  --jq .html_url

If no rollup comment exists (very old trackers predating the rollup convention), create one fresh with just the new entry — same as the create branch of the upsert recipe.

Capture the rollup permalink for use in the closing comment.

6b — Post the closing comment

gh issue comment <N> --repo <tracker> --body-file /tmp/invalidate-<N>-close.md

Body is the Step 5b shape with comment IDs substituted.

6c — Apply labels

gh issue edit <N> --repo <tracker> \
  --add-label 'invalid' \
  --remove-label '<scope-label>' \
  --remove-label 'needs triage' \
  --remove-label 'pr created' \
  --remove-label 'pr merged'

gh issue edit ignores --remove-label for labels that aren't set, so listing all candidates is safe and idempotent.

6d — Close the tracker

gh issue close <N> --repo <tracker> --reason 'not planned'

not planned is the right close reason — completed would imply the issue was resolved, which is misleading for an invalid disposition.

6e — Archive the project-board item

Run the introspection query + archiveProjectV2Item mutation from Step 5c. Capture the returned isArchived: true and record in the rollup if it differs from expected.

6f — Create the Gmail draft (security@-imported only)

Skip if PR-imported or the user chose silent.

Use the backend chosen in Step 5d:

• oauth_curl: call the oauth_curl drafts:create script per draft-backends.md with threadId=<tracker.threadId>, to=<reporterEmail>, cc=<security-list>, subject='Re: <root subject>', body=<file>. The draft lands attached to the inbound thread.
• claude_ai_mcp: call mcp__claude_ai_Gmail__create_draft with the same fields; Gmail subject-matches it onto the inbound thread.

Capture the returned draftId. Update the rollup entry's Reporter notification line with the actual draft ID (re-PATCH the rollup comment if the draft ID was a placeholder when 6a ran).

6g — Cleanup

Delete /tmp/invalidate-<N>-*.md.

---

Step 7 — Recap and hand-off

Print a one-screen recap:

• Tracker number, clickable URL, new state (closed - not planned).
• Labels applied / removed.
• Rollup entry permalink.
• Closing comment permalink.
• Project board status (archived or not on board).
• Gmail draft ID + Gmail web URL (security@-imported only) — or the explicit no draft explanation (PR-imported or silent close).

Hand-off line:

Terminal disposition. No further skill runs are expected on <tracker>#<N>. If the team later changes its mind, re-open the tracker manually and re-run the discussion at Step 5; there is no un-invalidate skill (and there should not be — reversing an invalid close is a deliberate team action that deserves a fresh discussion).

---

What this skill does not do

• Does not host the validity discussion. The decision is the team's, made in the tracker comments. The skill only applies the decision once it has been reached.
• Does not mark the CVE record REJECTED in Vulnogram. When a CVE has been allocated, that is a separate flow gated on the Step 0 hard-stop. Once the CVE is REJECTED, the user re-invokes this skill.
• Does not delete the tracker, its comments, or its history. The audit trail (who decided what and when) is the project's long-term record of how the security team handles invalid reports — that material stays. Only the project-board item is archived (which preserves it in the Archived view).
• Does not send email. Drafts only.
• Does not comment on the public PR when the tracker is PR-imported.

---

Failure modes

Symptom	Likely cause	Fix
Step 0 hard stop fires (cve allocated)	The tracker has a CVE; closing as invalid here would orphan a CVE record	Reject the CVE in Vulnogram first, then re-invoke. The CVE-tool URL is in the CVE tool link body field.
Step 0 hard stop fires (fix released / announced)	The advisory has already shipped	Escalate to the team — closing as invalid here is a public retraction, not a routine close.
archiveProjectV2Item returns not found for the item	Project-board item ID has changed (rare; usually because the item was manually moved)	Re-run the introspection query. If the tracker is genuinely not on the board, skip 6e and note in the rollup.
Gmail draft creation fails with oauth_curl 401	OAuth token expired	Re-run the credential refresh per tools/gmail/oauth-draft/README.md; fall back to claude_ai_mcp if oauth refresh is impractical.
The tracker title contains characters that break heredoc / shell quoting	Title with ' or backticks	Use --body-file paths everywhere (already the convention); never inline issue titles into shell strings.
Rollup comment not found (very old tracker, pre-convention)	Rollup didn't exist yet	Create one fresh with just the close entry (per the create branch of the upsert recipe).
The tracker is security@-imported but the inbound thread can't be located in Gmail	Thread was archived / Gmail account changed / threadId is stale	Surface to the user; offer the silent confirmation form — the close still happens, the rollup notes the missing reply.

---

Examples

Example 1 — security@-imported, dag-author-input class

invalidate 244

Tracker <tracker>#244 (DAG author RCE on webserver via unrestricted import_string() in BaseSerialization.deserialize()), import path: security@-imported. Step 3 mines five comments arguing the dag author is already trusted (with quotes from @potiuk and @ephraimbuddy). Canned: When someone claims Dag author-provided "user input" is dangerous. Email draft created on thread <threadId> with the canned spine + augmentation quoting the team's specific reasoning. Tracker closed as not planned, invalid label applied, scope label removed, project board item archived. Rollup entry posted with five verbatim quotes and the draft ID. Hand-off: terminal.

Example 2 — PR-imported, no email

invalidate 355

Tracker #355 (the public-PR-imported tracker from the test of import-security-issue-from-pr against PR 65703). Suppose the team later decides the report is not CVE-worthy on its own merits. Step 2 detects the N/A — opened from public PR sentinel; the email-draft step is skipped. Closing comment notes "no reporter notification (PR-imported tracker)". Rollup entry records the silent notification path with a link to the Reporter credit policy explaining why. Tracker closed, archived. PR <upstream>#65703 is not commented on — the public PR stays unaware of the CVE process per the import-from-pr skill's golden rules.

Example 3 — Hard stop: CVE already allocated

invalidate 257

Step 0 sees cve allocated label and CVE tool link populated with https://cveprocess.apache.org/.../CVE-2026-XXXXX. The skill stops:

Tracker #257 has CVE CVE-2026-XXXXX allocated. Closing as invalid here would orphan a public CVE record. Reject the CVE in Vulnogram first (https://cveprocess.apache.org/.../CVE-2026-XXXXX), then re-invoke invalidate 257.

No labels touched, no comments posted, no archive performed.