Improve GitHub Actions Fork Approval Documentation

[SachinSingh008]

Description

This PR improves the clarity and accessibility of the "Approving workflow runs from forks" documentation by restructuring the content to be more user-friendly for both technical and non-technical audiences.

Comment

The original documentation was technically accurate but could be difficult to understand for users unfamiliar with GitHub Actions terminology. This revision maintains all technical details while making the content more accessible and scannable.

Why

Problem: The existing documentation used complex language and lacked clear structure, making it challenging for new users to understand when and why workflow approval is needed.

Solution: Restructured content with:

• Clearer explanations of technical concepts
• Better organization with bold section headers
• Simplified language while maintaining accuracy
• Improved scannability for quick reference

Closes: #[issue-number] (if applicable)

What's being changed

Before:

Workflow runs triggered by a contributor's pull request from a fork may require manual approval from a maintainer with write access. You can configure workflow approval requirements for a repository, organization, or enterprise.
Workflow runs that have been awaiting approval for more than 30 days are automatically deleted.

After:

When external contributors submit pull requests from their forked repositories, the automated workflows (like tests or builds) may need your approval before running. This security measure prevents untrusted code from accessing your repository's resources and secrets.

**Configuration levels:**
Configure approval requirements at the repository, organization, or enterprise level.

**Auto-deletion:** Workflow runs awaiting approval for more than 30 days are automatically deleted.

Key Changes:

• Simplified opening paragraph - Explains forks and workflows in plain language
• Added context - Explains the security rationale behind approval requirements
• Improved structure - Used bold headers to highlight key information sections
• Enhanced readability - Shorter sentences and clearer explanations
• Maintained technical accuracy - Preserved all links, references, and technical details

Check off the following:

• A subject matter expert (SME) has reviewed the technical accuracy of the content in this PR. In most cases, the author can be the SME. Open source contributions may require an SME review from GitHub staff.
• The changes in this PR meet the docs fundamentals that are required for all content.
• All CI checks are passing and the changes look good in the review environment.

---

Additional Notes

• All original YAML frontmatter preserved
• All redirect paths maintained
• Original data reusables call preserved
• No breaking changes to existing functionality

[welcome]

Thanks for opening this pull request! A GitHub docs team member should be by to give feedback soon. In the meantime, please check out the contributing guidelines.

[github-actions]

How to review these changes 👓

Thank you for your contribution. To review these changes, choose one of the following options:

• Spin up a codespace
• Set up a local development environment

A Hubber will need to deploy your changes internally to review.

Table of review links

Note: Please update the URL for your staging server or codespace.

The table shows the files in the content directory that were changed in this pull request. This helps you review your changes on a staging server. Changes to the data directory are not included in this table.

Source	Review	Production	What Changed
actions/how-tos/manage-workflow-runs/approve-runs-from-forks.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14

Key: fpt: Free, Pro, Team; ghec: GitHub Enterprise Cloud; ghes: GitHub Enterprise Server

🤖 This comment is automatically generated.

[Sharra-writes]

@SachinSingh008 Thanks for opening a PR! I've been looking at this against the original, and while the changes you've made aren't sweeping, I'm not convinced the article is better. Why things happen as they do belongs in a reference article, not a how-to, so your change adds unnecessary information that's available elsewhere. Your formatting isn't really consistent with our style, and adds additional words that don't do anything except direct attention. It's longer without saying more, except where the "more" doesn't need to be said. The article introduction is already concise and easy to scan.

If you want to work on an article that even an LLM can probably only improve, may I recommend About pull requests? That one is a mess. It has some versioning you'll probably have to work around manually, but the first section is a wall of text that desperately needs to be edited down and/or broken up. Keep in mind for "about" articles that we're trying to answer the question "why is this feature useful to me?" and trying to minimize technical details as much as possible.

There are other "about" articles that need some attention if that one isn't to your taste. Most of them need attention, to be honest. For examples of how we would like them to look and read, you can see About forks and About discussions, which were updated recently.

We're not going to accept this particular change, but I hope you'll find another article that needs work and see what you can do with that. 💛

[SachinSingh008]

Hi @Sharra-writes , thanks for the feedback and guidance. I’ll focus on improving an “About” article—starting with About pull requests—while reviewing the style of About forks and About discussions for reference.
Thank you