Check every host, link, install command, secret, version and default the change introduces, because readers will copy them. A docs pull request is code review for text that people execute. Use a short checklist, run it every time, and let automation handle the mechanical items.
Why docs changes deserve a security look
Docs are often reviewed for grammar and accuracy, then merged quickly. Yet a docs change can tell thousands of readers to download a file, disable a check or paste a token. Outside contributors add links and snippets too, and not every contribution is well meant or well informed.
The checklist
| Area | Question | Typical fix |
|---|---|---|
| Hosts and links | Does every URL point to a domain we control or a reserved example name? | Replace with example.com or a link to the official source |
| Install commands | Is anything piped into a shell, or fetched from an unfamiliar host? | Download, verify, run; link to the official release page |
| Secrets | Is any key, token or password present, even an old or test one? | Replace with a placeholder read from an environment variable |
| Versions | Are versions pinned, and are they free of known advisories? | Pin and re-check, or note the test date |
| Defaults | Does the sample disable verification, enable debug, or open a port to all interfaces? | Make the safe choice the default |
| Package names | Is each package name exactly the official one? | Link to the registry page for the real project |
| Hidden content | Do code blocks contain non printing or non ASCII characters? | Remove them |
| Permissions | Does any step ask for administrator rights or broad file permissions? | Explain why or reduce the scope |
How to run it in practice
- Read the diff in the rendered preview and in the raw source. Differences between the two are a red flag.
- Click every new link. Check where it lands and whether the site is the project's official one.
- Run the new commands in a throwaway environment, not on a laptop with real credentials.
- Search the added lines for the words token, secret, password, key, curl, wget, sudo, chmod and verify.
- Look at who is contributing. A first time contributor adding a download link deserves an extra look, which is not an accusation.
- Approve only when each row of the table has an answer.
What to automate
Do not rely on reviewers to spot everything by eye. A docs build can check links against an allow list, search for secrets, flag non ASCII characters in code blocks, and fail on missing review dates. Manual review then covers judgement: is this advice sound, and is this the right way to teach it?
Pair the checklist with ownership. Use a code owners file so changes to install pages, security pages and sample projects always reach someone who knows the risks. See how to review a GitHub Actions workflow change for a similar approach to pipeline files.
Try it yourself
A pull request gate is where several of these checks can run automatically. Click through a gated pull request.
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen.
Safeguard's policy gates can block a pull request on findings your team chooses, and dependency scanning covers the sample projects in the same repository. The free scan is at https://gold.safeguard.sh/scan.
Quick check
Does a docs only change need security review?
If it adds commands, links, versions or sample code, yes. Readers act on those.
Can the checklist be automated?
Much of it can: link allow lists, secret search, character checks and version scans. Keep human review for judgement.
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
