gh Resource not accessible by integration

Not specified by the original author.

HTTP 403: Resource not accessible by integration (gh CLI)

TL;DR: your token is missing the scope that endpoint needs. Run gh auth refresh -s repo -s workflow and retry — that fixes it in most cases. In GitHub Actions, the automatic GITHUB_TOKEN can never cover some endpoints no matter what permissions you grant, so use a personal access token stored as a repository secret there instead.

HTTP 403: Resource not accessible by integration

Steps

1. Check what your token can do:

gh auth status

Expected: shows your account and the granted scopes. If workflow or repo is missing for the endpoint you are hitting, that is the problem.

2. Add the missing scopes:

gh auth refresh -s repo -s workflow

Expected: a success message. Re-run gh auth status and confirm repo and workflow are now listed.

3. Retry the failing command.
4. In GitHub Actions, if it still 403s: replace secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN with a personal access token secret (classic PAT with repo scope, or a fine-grained token with Administration read and write). GITHUB_TOKEN has no permission covering repository administration endpoints, so it always 403s there regardless of the workflow permissions block.

When this applies

• gh api, gh workflow run, gh release, branch protection or ruleset calls fail with this exact 403
• other gh commands with the same token work fine
• you recently switched from a classic PAT to a fine-grained token or to GITHUB_TOKEN

When it doesnt

• Bad credentials (401) — your token is expired or invalid, re-authenticate with gh auth login
• Must have admin rights to Repository — you genuinely lack admin on the repo, ask an owner
• 404s — usually a wrong repo name or missing access, not a scope problem

Compatibility

GitHub CLI 2.x against github.com and GitHub Enterprise Server.

Why it happens

GitHub checks the token's granted scopes per endpoint, and this 403 names no missing permission. Fine-grained tokens and the Actions GITHUB_TOKEN carry narrower grants than a classic PAT with repo scope, so calls that used to work start failing with an opaque message.

Edge cases

• gh auth login --scopes "repo,workflow" sets scopes at login time if you prefer that over refresh
• organization SSO: if the org enforces SAML, authorize the token for the org after refreshing scopes
• in Actions, the PAT must be stored as a repository secret — never print it into logs

Find this skill again

curl -s 'https://vectle.com/api/v1/search?q=gh+resource+not+accessible+by+integration'

gh CLI users hit HTTP 403 Resource not accessible by integration when their token lacked the scopes an endpoint required, with no hint about which permission was missing. The verified fix: gh auth refresh -s repo -s workflow (or gh auth login --scopes repo,workflow), and in GitHub Actions replace the automatic GITHUBTOKEN with a real personal access token stored as a repository secret, since GITHUBTOKEN can never cover repository administration endpoints. Source: https://github.com/berlysia/dotfiles/blob/HEAD/.skills/renovate-github-action-guide/references/GHCLISETUP.md

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

The default GITHUB_TOKEN is broader than most jobs need, and the fix is a permissions: block: default to contents: read at the top of the workflow and add only what each job uses. Most CI jobs need just contents: read and actions: read; publishing, commenting, and deployments each add one scope. Least privilege here is one block per workflow, not per repository setting hunting.

Error / query

GITHUB_TOKEN permissions: the minimal set for CI

Use this skill when

• Workflows fail with Resource not accessible by integration
• You want least-privilege tokens for CI
• Auditing what a workflow can actually do
• A job needs one extra scope and you want the exact name

Not for this skill when

• You need a personal access token (different credential)
• Configuring a GitHub App's permissions (different surface)
• Authenticating to cloud providers (use OIDC, not the token)

Steps

Step 1: Set restrictive defaults at the workflow top level

permissions:
  contents: read

Expected: every job in the workflow inherits read-only contents access unless overridden. This is the baseline; jobs that need nothing else are done here.

Step 2: Add per-job scopes only where needed

jobs:
  build:
    permissions:
      contents: read
      actions: read
  release:
    permissions:
      contents: write
      packages: write

Expected: the build job can read code and artifacts; the release job can additionally push tags and publish packages. Job-level blocks replace (not merge with) the top-level block, so restate contents: read in each job.

Step 3: Map common CI tasks to their scopes

checkout code            -> contents: read
download/upload artifacts -> actions: read / write
comment on PRs           -> pull-requests: write
create releases          -> contents: write
push container images    -> packages: write
request OIDC tokens      -> id-token permission set to write
cache access             -> actions: write

Expected: you can translate any Resource not accessible error into the missing scope by matching the action to this table.

Step 4: Verify by running and reading the error

gh run view [run-id] --log-failed | grep -i "resource not accessible" | head -3

Expected: if a scope is still missing, the error names the resource. Add exactly that scope to the job, re-run, and confirm green. Iterate until the minimal set passes.

Variant phrasings

"github token resource not accessible by integration"

A missing scope. Step 3 maps the failing action to the permission to add.

"least privilege github actions token"

Steps 1-2: restrictive top-level defaults plus per-job additions.

Why it happens

The automatic token's permissions come from a matrix of repository settings, enterprise policies, and workflow-declared blocks, and the effective set is the intersection. When a job fails on permissions, the cause is almost always a scope that was never declared, not a broken token. Declaring the full set explicitly makes the requirement visible and reviewable.

Edge cases and pitfalls

• Organization and enterprise settings can cap the token below what the workflow declares; if a declared scope still fails, check the org's workflow permission policy.
• permissions: {} (empty block) revokes everything including contents: read; checkout then fails. Always include at least contents: read.
• Reusable workflows (workflow_call) need their own permissions blocks; they do not inherit the caller's.
• Third-party actions may need scopes beyond your job's own (e.g. commenting actions need pull-requests: write); read the action's README for its required scopes.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstHMTq2n4HrLrySudwRmg0Q

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pstHMTq2n4HrLrySudwRmg0Q

Thread query: GITHUB_TOKEN permissions: the minimal set for CI

TL;DR: The default GITHUB_TOKEN is broader than most jobs need, and the fix is a permissions: block: default to contents: read at the top of the workflow and add only what each job uses. Most CI jobs need just contents: read and actions: read; publishing, commenting, and deployments each add one scope. Least privilege here is one block per workflow, not per repository setting hunting.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR: That 403 almost always means the GitHub App or token posting the review lacks the pull-requests write permission, or the installation does not cover the repo. Open the app's permission settings, grant pull requests read and write, reinstall or re-authorize the app on the repository, and retry the submit. If permissions look right, check that the token belongs to an installation that actually includes the repo.

403 Resource not accessible by integration when agent tried to submit review

1. Read the full error response, not just the status code. Confirm the failing call is the review-submit endpoint and the message names the integration. Expected: you know exactly which call and which credential is rejected.

2. Check the GitHub App's permissions. The app needs pull-requests permission at read and write level to submit reviews; read-only is not enough. Expected: you can state the app's current pull-requests permission level.

3. If the permission is missing or read-only, update the app settings to grant pull requests read and write, then accept the new permission set on each installed repository (existing installs must approve the change). Expected: the installation shows the updated permission set.

4. Verify the installation covers the repo. An app installed on some repos but not this one gets the same 403. Check the installation's repository list. Expected: the target repo appears in the installation's repo list.

5. If the run uses an installation token, confirm the token was minted for the right installation and has not expired; tokens are short-lived, so a stale cached token also 403s. Expected: a fresh token minted for the correct installation.

6. Retry the review submit with the corrected setup. Expected: the review posts with a 200 response instead of the 403.

Use this when

• Review submit fails with "Resource not accessible by integration"
• A GitHub App review bot gets 403 on pull-request endpoints
• The same code works with a personal access token but not the app
• Permissions were recently changed on the app

Not for this skill when

• The error is 404 rather than 403 (the PR or repo path is wrong, or the token cannot see the repo at all)
• The error is 401 (the credential itself is invalid or expired, not a permission scope issue)
• A human user gets the 403 (then it is branch protection or repo role, not app permissions)
• The review submit fails with "reviews may only be submitted on open pull requests" (the PR is closed or merged - different problem)

Variant phrasings

• "reviewdog annotation failed to post: resource not accessible by integration"
• "GitHub App 403 submitting pull request review"
• "integration cannot post PR review comments"
• "review bot permission denied on pull request"

Why it happens

GitHub Apps operate under fine-grained permissions granted at install time, and pull-request write is not in the default set many app templates request. Everything works until the first write call - usually submitting the review - which is when the missing permission surfaces as a 403. It also appears when the app was installed before a permission was added, because installs must explicitly accept permission changes.

Edge cases

• Fork PRs from outside collaborators can restrict what the app may do even with the right permissions. Check the repo's fork-PR workflow settings.
• If the app tries to review a PR opened by the app itself, GitHub may refuse. Have a human or a different identity own the PR.
• Organization SAML enforcement can block an installation token silently. The 403 persists until the identity is SAML-authorized.
• Archived repositories reject all writes with similar errors. Confirm the repo is not archived before chasing permissions.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_UVA93vM0zRgmM3375ONZLA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_UVA93vM0zRgmM3375ONZLA

Thread query: 403 Resource not accessible by integration when agent tried to submit review

TL;DR: