Update docs about permissions required for managing dependabot-related secrets #40872
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why:
Historically, it was already possible to manage secrets via the REST API with Write permissions, even though the GitHub web interface did not provide a UI for it at the time. Recently, the web UI has also been updated to allow secret management directly.
(As of October 16, 2025, it appears that the current UI has an issue where, if there are no Dependabot secrets yet, the link to the page for adding them is not displayed. However, it is still possible to access and manage Dependabot secrets by directly entering the page’s URL)
According to the following documentation, users with Write permission can now manage repository secrets:
This update to the documentation appears to have been made in the following pull request:
Based on these facts, the current explanation stating that Owner or Admin permissions are required is no longer accurate.
I’d like to propose updating the description to reflect the actual behavior — namely, that Write permissions are sufficient to manage Dependabot-related secrets.
I verified this behavior in an organization repository where I have Write permission.
I haven’t tested it in a personal repository, so there’s a chance my understanding might not be entirely accurate in that case.
Reviewers are likely more familiar with the details here, so I’d appreciate it if you could double-check whether write permission is also sufficient for personal repositories.
What's being changed (if available, include any code snippets, screenshots, or gifs):
I’ve updated the description, which previously stated that Owner or Admin permissions were required to create secrets, to now indicate that Write permission is sufficient.
Check off the following: