security-issue-import-from-pr

name	security-issue-import-from-pr
description	Open a tracking issue in <tracker> for a security-relevant fix that has already been opened (or merged) as a public PR in <upstream>, in the case where there is no inbound `<security-list>` report. The tracker lands in the `Assessed` board column (the team-deliberate import implies the security assessment has already happened) with the scope label applied, `pr created` / `pr merged` reflecting the PR's state, and `Remediation developer` / `PR with the fix` body fields populated from the PR — ready for `security-cve-allocate` to take over.
when_to_use	Invoke when a security team member says "import a tracker from PR <N>", "open a tracker for <upstream>#NNN", "we need a CVE for this PR", or similar — typically when a contributor opens or merges a public fix that the team agrees is security-relevant but that never went through `security@`. Use only when the PR's security relevance has already been agreed informally; this skill does not host a validity discussion. For reports that arrive on `<security-list>`, use `security-issue-import`.

security-issue-import-from-pr

This skill is an alternative on-ramp of the security-issue handling process for the case where the report never arrived on <security-list>. A contributor opened a public fix in <upstream>; somebody on the security team noticed it is security-relevant; the team decided informally that the fix warrants a CVE. This skill turns that public PR into an <tracker> tracking issue so the rest of the workflow (security-cve-allocate → security-issue-sync → security-issue-fix → public advisory) can run.

It is the smaller sibling of security-issue-import:

	security-issue-import	security-issue-import-from-pr
Source	<security-list> Gmail / PonyMail thread	<upstream> PR URL or number
Reporter present	Yes (external researcher)	No (PR author = remediation developer = de-facto finder)
Receipt-of-confirmation reply	Drafted on the inbound thread	Skipped — no reporter to reply to
Inbound confidentiality	Report content is private; never leaks to public	PR is already public; no new private info to protect
Validity discussion	Hosted on the tracker after import (Step 3 of README.md)	Already done informally before invocation; tracker lands Assessed
Initial board column	Needs triage	Assessed

Golden rule — Assessed, not Needs triage. When the team deliberately imports from a public PR, they have already concluded that the report is a security issue. The tracker therefore skips the Needs triage column and the validity discussion that column implies; it lands in Assessed with the scope label applied, ready for CVE allocation. Only invoke this skill once that informal assessment has happened — if the report's security relevance is genuinely unclear, route it through the normal process (a brief discussion in security team chat, then either import via security@ if a reporter is involved, or open a Needs triage tracker manually).

Golden rule — never reveal the security framing in <upstream>. The PR exists in public. The security team's interpretation of it (severity, exploit path, CVE intent) does not until the advisory ships. After this skill runs, do not characterise the public PR as a security fix, do not comment on it with the CVE plan, and do not paste tracker discussion content into it. The tracker URL itself is a public-safe identifier per the Confidentiality of <tracker> rule and may appear in the public PR description as a cross-reference, so long as the surrounding text does not frame the change as a security fix. The security-issue-fix public-PR guardrails apply in full from the moment the tracker exists: neutral bug-fix language, no CVE-, no "vulnerability" or "security fix" phrasing.

---

Prerequisites

Before running, the skill needs:

• gh CLI authenticated (gh auth status returns OK) with collaborator access to <tracker> and read access to <upstream>. The skill calls gh pr view, gh search issues, gh api repos/<tracker>/issues, and gh issue edit.
• Project-board write access. Setting the Assessed column uses the addProjectV2ItemById / updateProjectV2ItemFieldValue GraphQL mutations from tools/github/project-board.md.

No Gmail, no PonyMail. There is no inbound thread to read and no reporter to draft a reply to.

See Prerequisites for running the agent skills in README.md for overall setup.

---

Step 0 — Pre-flight check

Before fetching the PR, verify:

1. gh is authenticated and has access to both repos. Run gh api repos/<tracker> --jq .name and gh api repos/<upstream> --jq .name. If either errors (401, 403, 404), stop and tell the user to log in or get added.

2. The PR identifier is parseable. Accept any of:

   User input form	Resolved PR number
   65703	65703
   <upstream>#65703	65703 (require repo == <upstream>)
   https://github.com/<upstream>/pull/65703	65703 (require repo == <upstream>)
   https://github.com/<upstream>/pull/65703/files	65703 (trailing path stripped)

   If the input names a different repo than <upstream>, stop — the security team only allocates CVEs for <upstream> PRs.

If either check fails, do not proceed; the skill would fail mid-flow leaving half-built state.

---

Step 1 — Fetch PR metadata

Pull everything needed in one gh pr view:

gh pr view <N> --repo <upstream> --json \
    number,title,body,author,state,mergedAt,url,files,labels,milestone,baseRefName \
  > /tmp/pr-<N>.json

Record into the observed-state bag:

• pr.number, pr.url, pr.title, pr.state (OPEN / CLOSED / MERGED), pr.mergedAt (null when not merged), pr.baseRefName, pr.body.
• pr.author.login, pr.author.name — used for Remediation developer and the proposed Reporter credited as.
• pr.files[].path — drives scope detection in Step 2.
• pr.labels[].name — informational only; tracker labels are derived from scope, not copied.
• pr.milestone.title — used for milestone detection in Step 3.

Reject CLOSED (not merged) PRs with a one-line ask: confirm the user wants a tracker for an abandoned fix. The normal case is OPEN (in-flight) or MERGED (already shipped).

---

Step 2 — Detect scope from changed files

The scope label is the load-bearing tracker field — it pins the release train, the milestone format, the CVE container, and the Affected versions shape (see <project-config>/scope-labels.md).

Map pr.files[].path to scope:

Path prefix	Scope	Notes
providers/<name>/…	providers	Capture <name> (e.g. amazon, cncf-kubernetes, smtp) — used for the package name and the Affected versions field.
chart/… or helm-chart/…	chart	Helm-chart-only changes.
Anything else (e.g. airflow-core/…, top-level airflow/…, task-sdk/… through 3.2.x)	airflow	Core / shared.

Mixed-scope guard. If pr.files[] touches more than one scope (e.g. one file in providers/amazon/ and one in airflow-core/), stop and surface a blocker:

PR changes files across more than one scope (<scope-A>, <scope-B>). One tracker maps to one CVE container. Either split the report into per-scope trackers manually, or re-confirm with the team which scope the CVE should be allocated against, and re-invoke with that decision noted.

The same convention exists in scope-labels.md: "if a report affects more than one scope, the security team splits the report into per-scope trackers before allocation."

Multiple providers. A PR that touches providers/amazon/ only is a single-package providers tracker. A PR that touches providers/amazon/ and providers/google/ is still a single providers-scope tracker (scope is one), but the Affected versions body field carries one line per affected package — propose both lines in Step 5.

Test-only changes (*/tests/**) do not count toward scope detection — they ride wherever the production code rides. Strip them before applying the scope mapping.

---

Step 3 — Propose milestone

Milestone shape is scope-dependent (see milestones.md):

• airflow / chart scope — propose the PR's own milestone (e.g. Airflow 3.2.2). If the PR has no milestone, ask the user to pick the next core release; do not invent one.
• providers scope — propose the next Providers YYYY-MM-DD wave from release-trains.md. The PR's own milestone (if any) is the wrong signal for providers — the providers wave ships on a separate cadence. If the PR is already merged and the next wave's date is unclear, surface the question and let the user pick.

Validate the proposed milestone exists on <tracker>:

gh api repos/<tracker>/milestones --jq '.[].title' | grep -F '<milestone>'

If it does not exist, surface as a blocker — milestone creation is a manual project-board action, not part of this skill.

---

Step 4 — Duplicate-tracker guard

Before proposing a new tracker, check that one does not already exist for this PR. The PR URL and number are both reliable discriminators because the PR with the fix body field on existing trackers contains the URL once security-issue-sync has run on them.

gh search issues --repo <tracker> "in:body \"pull/<N>\"" \
    --json number,title,state \
  | jq '.'

Also search for the bare number to catch trackers where the field has been hand-edited:

gh search issues --repo <tracker> "in:body <N>" --json number,title,state | jq '.'

If either search returns a hit:

• Surface the existing tracker(s) to the user with a clickable <tracker>#NNN reference.
• Stop — do not create a duplicate tracker. The user either re-invokes security-issue-sync NNN to refresh the existing tracker's PR-state labels, or (if the existing tracker is closed and the fix needs re-tracking) invokes the skill again with an explicit force argument.

---

Step 5 — Build proposed tracker contents

Assemble the proposal and surface it to the user before any write. The proposal must include every field the user might want to override.

5a — Title

Start from pr.title. Strip:

• Conventional-commit prefixes (fix:, feat:, security:, chore:, etc.) and their parenthesised scope (fix(secrets):).
• [skip ci], [ci-skip], [skip-ci] markers.
• Trailing (#NNNN) and [#NNNN].

Do not add <vendor>: <product>: (e.g. Apache Airflow:) prefix — that lives in the CVE title, not the tracker title (the security-cve-allocate skill normalises for the CVE record). Tracker titles in <tracker> are plain-language summaries.

If the cleaned title is shorter than ~25 characters or vague (e.g. just fix bug in secrets backend), propose a longer title that names the affected component, and surface the proposed swap to the user.

5b — Issue body

The <tracker> issue template (see tools/github/issue-template.md) has nine fields. Fill them as follows:

Field	Value
The issue description	Two paragraphs: (1) a one-line note > **Imported from public PR <upstream>#<N>** — there is no inbound \security@` report; the PR description below is the public statement of the vulnerability.` (2) the PR body verbatim, fenced if it is heavily templated.
Short public summary for publish	_No response_ (the team writes this when drafting the advisory; not derivable from the PR).
Affected versions	Per the scope's Affected versions convention from scope-labels.md. For providers: one line per affected package, <package-name> < NEXT VERSION. For airflow / chart: < X.Y.Z from the milestone.
Security mailing list thread	Sentinel: N/A — opened from public PR <upstream>#<N>; no security@ thread. The field is required: true in the form — the skill creates the issue via gh api (Step 7), which bypasses form-required-field enforcement, but the sentinel is still set so future security-issue-sync runs do not flag the field as missing.
Public advisory URL	_No response_.
Reporter credited as	_No response_. The PR author is not credited as the CVE reporter for this kind of import. A public PR is not a responsible disclosure — the contributor went straight to the public fix without giving the security team a chance to coordinate the announcement, so the security team neither owes a finder credit nor wants to incentivise the practice. The user can populate the field manually if there is a project-specific reason to credit a different individual (e.g. an internal reviewer who privately flagged the issue on the PR before it landed). See Reporter credit policy for public-PR imports below.
PR with the fix	pr.url (e.g. https://github.com/<upstream>/pull/65703).

The body is written to a temp file in Step 7; in the proposal, show it inline so the user can scan-and-redirect before any write.

Reporter credit policy for public-PR imports

Trackers imported via this skill do not credit the PR author as the CVE reporter. The reasoning:

• No responsible disclosure. The contributor opened a public fix PR without giving the security team a chance to coordinate. The CVE-finder credit is the project's recognition of someone who followed the disclosure process; it is not appropriate to award it retroactively to a public-PR submitter.
• Incentive alignment. Treating public-PR submitters as CVE reporters trains the next contributor to skip <security-list> and go straight to the public fix. The credit asymmetry (no reporter credit for public-PR imports, full credit for security@ reports) makes the disclosure path the more attractive one.
• Remediation developer is different. The PR commit already attributes the code change to the contributor publicly; crediting them as Remediation developer (which appears in the CVE record's credits[] with type: "remediation developer") just acknowledges what the public commit history already says. No new information is exposed.

If a triager has a project-specific reason to credit a different individual — for example, a security-team member who privately spotted the issue on review of a routine-looking PR and asked the author to land the fix — they override Reporter credited as manually during Step 6 confirmation. The default is always blank.

Golden rule — no outreach to the PR author about the CVE. The public PR stays unaware of the CVE plan until the advisory ships. Do not comment on the PR characterising it as a security fix, do not email or DM the PR author about the CVE allocation or the advisory schedule, and do not paste tracker discussion content into the PR description, commit messages, or review threads. The tracker URL itself is a public-safe identifier (per the Confidentiality of <tracker> rule) and may appear as a cross-reference, but the security framing and any tracker-content quotes must not. The PR author learns about the CVE — if at all — when the public advisory ships.

5c — Labels

Apply at creation:

• Scope label: <scope> (airflow, providers, or chart).
• PR-state label: pr created if pr.state == OPEN, pr merged if pr.state == MERGED.
• security issue — required for the <tracker> Auto-add to project workflow filter (is:issue label:"security issue"); without it the issue will not appear on the board.

Do not apply needs triage — this skill's deliberate-import contract is that the validity assessment has already happened.

5d — Project board

Target column: Assessed (option ID ce6377ce — see <project-config>/project.md). Validates the Label + body state → Status mapping:

Scope label applied, no CVE yet → Assessed.

5e — Status-rollup comment

The first entry on the tracker's status rollup. Shape per tools/github/status-rollup.md:

<!-- <tracker> status rollup v1 — all bot-authored status updates fold into this single comment. -->
<details><summary><YYYY-MM-DD> · @<author-handle> · Import from PR (<scope>, <upstream>#<N>)</summary>

**Imported from public PR `<upstream>#<N>` on <YYYY-MM-DD>** (scope: `<scope>`, PR state: `<state>`).

This tracker was deliberately opened by the security team for a public fix that did **not** arrive on `<security-list>`. The validity assessment was made informally before invocation; the tracker landed in the `Assessed` column accordingly.

**Next:** Step 6 — allocate the CVE via the [`security-cve-allocate`](https://github.com/<tracker>/blob/<default-branch>/.claude/skills/security-cve-allocate/SKILL.md) skill.

Provenance: public PR <pr.url>, author `@<pr.author.login>`.
Extracted fields: scope=`<scope>`, *PR with the fix*=<pr.url>, *Remediation developer*=, =, Severity=.

 intentionally left blank — public-PR imports do not credit the PR author as the CVE reporter (no responsible disclosure). See the []() section of the skill for the rationale.

Zero-whitespace rules from status-rollup.md apply: no leading spaces on any line inside the <details> block, exactly one blank line after <summary>…</summary>, exactly one blank line before </details>.

---

Step 6 — User confirmation

Surface the full proposal:

1. PR identification (number, title, author, state, merged-at).
2. Detected scope and reasoning (which file paths drove it).
3. Proposed milestone.
4. Title (original → cleaned).
5. Body (each of the nine fields, inline).
6. Labels.
7. Target board column (Assessed).
8. Rollup comment text.

Confirmation forms:

• go / proceed / yes / OK — apply as proposed.
• title: <new title> — override the title only; everything else as proposed.
• reporter: <name> — populate Reporter credited as (default is blank per Reporter credit policy). Use only when there is a project-specific reason to credit a different individual; this override does not add the PR author back as the reporter.
• severity: <level> — override the proposed Unknown.
• Multiple overrides comma-separated: reporter: Anonymous, severity: Important.
• cancel / none / hold off — bail; no tracker created.

Do not auto-default to import the way security-issue-import does. This skill is invoked deliberately on a single PR; spending one round-trip on explicit confirmation is the right trade. The proposal-to-confirmation pause also lets the user catch a bad scope detection (e.g. a task-sdk change mis-classified as airflow) before any tracker write.

---

Step 7 — Apply

Sequenced. Each step depends on the previous one's output.

7a — Create the tracker via gh api

Bypasses the form so the Security mailing list thread required-field check does not fire. Equivalent to security-issue-import's Step 7.

Write the body to a temp file:

cat > /tmp/import-pr-<N>-body.md <<'EOF'
### The issue description

> **Imported from public PR <upstream>#<N>** — there is no inbound `security@` report; the PR description below is the public statement of the vulnerability.

<verbatim PR body>

### Short public summary for publish

_No response_

### Affected versions

<per-scope shape>

### Security mailing list thread

N/A — opened from public PR <pr.url>; no security@ thread

### Public advisory URL

_No response_

### Reporter credited as

<proposed reporter>

### PR with the fix

<pr.url>

### Remediation developer

<proposed remediation developer>

### CWE

_No response_

### Severity

<proposed severity>

### CVE tool link

_No response_
EOF

Create:

gh api repos/<tracker>/issues \
  -f title='<cleaned title>' \
  -F body=@/tmp/import-pr-<N>-body.md \
  --jq '.number, .node_id, .html_url'

Capture number, node_id, html_url from the response.

7b — Apply labels

gh issue edit <new-issue-number> \
  --repo <tracker> \
  --add-label '<scope>' \
  --add-label '<pr-state-label>' \
  --add-label 'security issue'

<scope> is one of airflow, providers, chart. <pr-state-label> is pr created or pr merged per Step 5c.

7c — Set milestone

gh issue edit <new-issue-number> --repo <tracker> --milestone '<milestone>'

Skip if the user explicitly chose to leave it unset.

7d — Pin to the Assessed board column

Run the orphan-issue path from tools/github/project-board.md — addProjectV2ItemById followed by updateProjectV2ItemFieldValue. The Auto-add to project workflow may have already added the issue (filter: is:issue label:"security issue"); both branches converge because addProjectV2ItemById is idempotent.

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($pid:ID!,$nid:ID!) {
    addProjectV2ItemById(input: { projectId: $pid, contentId: $nid }) {
      item { id }
    }
  }' \
  -F pid=PVT_kwDOCAwKzs4BUzbt \
  -F nid=<issue-node-id> \
  --jq '.data.addProjectV2ItemById.item.id'

Capture the returned item ID, then set Status to Assessed:

gh api graphql -f query='
  mutation($pid:ID!,$iid:ID!,$fid:ID!,$oid:String!) {
    updateProjectV2ItemFieldValue(input: {
      projectId: $pid,
      itemId: $iid,
      fieldId: $fid,
      value: { singleSelectOptionId: $oid }
    }) { projectV2Item { id } }
  }' \
  -F pid=PVT_kwDOCAwKzs4BUzbt \
  -F iid=<item-id> \
  -F fid=PVTSSF_lADOCAwKzs4BUzbtzhD08bw \
  -f oid=ce6377ce

The pid / fid / oid values come from project.md; re-fetch them via the introspection query in project-board.md if either mutation returns not found.

7e — Post the status-rollup comment

gh issue comment <new-issue-number> \
  --repo <tracker> \
  --body-file /tmp/import-pr-<N>-rollup.md

The rollup body is the one drafted in Step 5e with placeholders filled.

7f — Cleanup

Delete /tmp/import-pr-<N>-body.md and /tmp/import-pr-<N>-rollup.md. They served their purpose for this run and would otherwise accumulate.

---

Step 8 — Recap and hand-off

Print a one-screen recap:

• The new tracker number and clickable <tracker>#NNN link.
• The PR URL it was imported from.
• The board column (Assessed).
• The labels applied.
• The milestone (if set).
• The status-rollup comment ID (clickable).

Then a one-line hand-off:

Next: allocate the CVE for this tracker. Run security-cve-allocate on <tracker>#NNN.

Do not auto-invoke security-cve-allocate — CVE allocation is PMC-gated (a non-PMC triager must relay the allocation request to a PMC member), and the user may want to batch the allocation with other trackers.

---

What this skill does not do

• Does not run a validity discussion. The skill's contract is that the assessment has already happened; the tracker lands Assessed. If you want a validity discussion, do not use this skill — open the tracker manually with Needs triage instead.
• Does not draft a reporter reply. There is no reporter; the PR author is the de-facto finder, and any communication with them happens on the public PR (which already exists).
• Does not create the GHSA. GHSA creation, advisory drafting, and the <upstream> private-repo coordination all happen later in the process — see README.md.
• Does not characterise the public PR as a security fix until the advisory ships. The tracker URL itself is a public-safe identifier and may appear in the PR description as a cross-reference; what does not appear is the CVE ID, the words "vulnerability" / "security fix" / "advisory", and any verbatim quote from the tracker discussion. See the Confidentiality of <tracker> rule.
• Does not run security-issue-sync on the new tracker. The initial body is already coherent; sync's job (reconciling PR state, milestone, assignee against current reality) is not needed on a tracker that is being created from those exact signals. Run sync only when the PR or thread state evolves later.

---

Failure modes

Symptom	Likely cause	Fix
gh api repos/<upstream> returns 404	Repo placeholder not substituted	Re-read <project-config>/project.md for the upstream_repo: value.
PR is CLOSED (not merged)	Fix abandoned upstream	Stop and confirm with the user that a tracker is still wanted; otherwise abandon.
gh api repos/<tracker>/issues returns 422	Missing or invalid title / body field shape	Re-check the body against the issue template's nine fields; the ### <field> headings must match exactly (case-sensitive).
addProjectV2ItemById returns not found for the project	Project-board node ID changed	Re-run the introspection query in project-board.md and update project.md.
Multiple existing trackers match the duplicate-guard search	Earlier closed-as-duplicate trackers reference the PR number in passing	Surface all hits to the user; let them confirm force to proceed anyway.
Mixed-scope PR (e.g. providers/ + airflow-core/)	The fix lives in more than one product	Stop; surface the per-scope split decision to the user before re-invoking.

---

Examples

Example 1 — providers scope, already merged

import from pr 65703

PR <upstream>#65703 (Prevent unauthorized access to team-scoped secrets in SM and SSM), state MERGED, author justinpakzad. Files: 6 paths under providers/amazon/.../secrets/. Scope detection: providers (amazon). Milestone: next Providers YYYY-MM-DD wave (the PR itself has no milestone). Labels: providers, pr merged, security issue. Board column: Assessed. Affected versions: apache-airflow-providers-amazon < NEXT VERSION. Remediation developer: Justin Pakzad (PR commit attributes the change publicly). Reporter credited as: blank — public-PR imports do not credit the PR author as the CVE reporter (no responsible disclosure; see Reporter credit policy).

Example 2 — airflow scope, in-flight

import from pr https://github.com/<upstream>/pull/65999

PR state OPEN, milestone Airflow 3.2.3. Files all under airflow-core/src/airflow/api_fastapi/. Scope: airflow. Milestone: Airflow 3.2.3. Labels: airflow, pr created, security issue. Affected versions: < 3.2.3. The skill proposes everything; on user confirmation, the tracker lands Assessed, ready for security-cve-allocate.

Example 3 — Mixed-scope PR (blocker)

import from pr 66042

PR touches airflow-core/src/.../serialization.py and providers/standard/src/.../python_operator.py. The skill stops and surfaces:

PR 66042 changes files across airflow and providers scopes. Split the report into two trackers (one per scope) manually, or re-confirm which scope the CVE should be allocated against.