Team Coverage
83.33%
Repos with at least one team grant
Free GitHub Access Audit
See GitHub repository access before you sign up
repod's free GitHub access audit gives private engineering orgs a first look at repository access: direct grants, private repos without team coverage, high-privilege teams, and unclear ownership.
- No write access
- Read-only token; results depend on its owner’s existing access
- Before signup
- Preview the risk signals first
- 24 hours
- Unclaimed audit sessions expire
Fictional organisation · product example
What would you review first?
12 active repositories selected for acme-demo; 10 have a team grant. Observed 5 September 2026, 10:00 UTC. These are demonstration results, not a customer audit.
Private Unassigned
1
Private repos with zero team grants
Direct Staff Mappings
3
User-to-repo grants outside team access
Direct-Only Repos
1
Repos with direct user grants but no team grants
High-Privilege Teams
1
Teams with maintain/admin on at least one repo
One finding, with the evidence to investigate
Direct grants need an explicit review decision. Three individual repository grants sit alongside the team model. One private repository has no team grant.
| Repository | Access path | Permission | Review decision |
|---|---|---|---|
acme-demo/portal | platform team | Write | Keep the team grant for the team that maintains the service. |
acme-demo/portal | alex-demo (direct grant) | Write | Check team membership; remove the individual grant only if another appropriate access path covers the work. |
acme-demo/deployment-controller | reviewer-demo (direct grant), no team grant | Read | Confirm the exception owner and review date; decide whether a team should own this repository. |
A direct grant is a review signal, not proof that access is wrong. Confirm the person's work and other access paths before making changes.
From the free audit to a saved workspace
The free audit shows the current access picture. Claim it to keep a workspace and review supported changes. Paid plans add ongoing review records, observed history and report exports.
Audit your GitHub organisation Download sample workspace report (PDF)
The PDF demonstrates a paid workspace report, generated by repod from fictional data. No credentials or signup are needed to view it.
What it answers
Which access decisions need attention first?
The audit identifies repositories outside the team model, durable access held as individual exceptions, and teams with elevated permissions. It gives a platform lead a concrete starting queue rather than another inventory export.
For the complete operating workflow, see how the GitHub access audit tool moves from evidence to reviewed changes.
Signals
Four checks with a clear review decision
Each signal corresponds to a permission or ownership decision that can be verified in GitHub.
Team coverage
Which repositories have at least one team-based permission path?
Private unassigned repos
Which private repositories have no team grant or clear owning group?
Direct staff mappings
Which user-to-repository grants sit outside the normal GitHub Team model?
High-privilege teams
Which teams hold Maintain or Admin and need an explicit justification?
Interpret the results with the GitHub Teams hierarchy and repository permissions guide and the explanation of GitHub Direct access vs Organization access.
Manual worksheet
Run the same decisions in a spreadsheet
Use the template for a small review or to agree the fields your team needs before automating the process.
| Repository | Visibility | Owning team | Direct access | Review decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
acme-platform/deployment-controller | Private | platform-engineering | alice-dev, vendor-reviewer | Replace durable direct access with team access; verify the vendor exception. |
The download also includes exception owner, expiry, permission, and notes columns. For a full manual process, use the GitHub repository permissions audit checklist or the GitHub repo access audit guide.