Hermes traces Actions usage to a forgotten fork
@sudoPhoeniX reports asking Hermes Agent to investigate about $500 in gross GitHub Actions usage. It traced the minutes to inherited workflows in a forgotten fork; the billed total was $0.
x.com
Suggested prompt
Suggested prompt written by Agents In Use, not the source author. Replace bracketed inputs and review tool permissions first.
Investigate unexpected GitHub Actions usage in this repository. Trace runner minutes to workflows and inherited schedules, distinguish gross usage from billed charges, and ask before changing automation.
Reach people exploring AI agents
See placements →Evidence at a glance
Sourced account- Source poster / publisher
- @sudoPhoeniX
- Original account
- Read the source ↗
- Published
- Source link checked
- Reported result
- The poster reports that Hermes traced unexpected Actions usage to a forgotten fork and inherited schedules. About $500 was gross usage, not a bill; the reported billed amount was $0.
- Human involvement
- The poster inspected the usage screen and billed column before assigning the investigation. No workflow disabling, repository changes or later remediation is reported.
A linked account supports attribution. It does not mean we independently reproduced its result.
Report an issue with this case
Open correction emailOpens your email app with the case link included. Nothing is sent automatically.
How the agent did it
- The poster noticed about $500 in gross GitHub Actions usage, checked the billed column and saw $0.
- They asked Hermes Agent to explain where the runner minutes came from.
- The investigation traced the usage to a September 21 fork whose October 1 sync triggered 11 inherited workflows.
@sudoPhoeniX noticed about $500 worth of GitHub Actions usage on a repository they barely touched. The billed column showed $0, which the poster attributes to the repository being public and using standard runners. They then asked Hermes Agent to explain where the minutes came from.
The reported answer was a fork created on September 21. After ten quiet days, an October 1 sync triggered 11 inherited workflows and their schedules began running. The fork carried 57 workflows; the poster says 268 scheduled runs had fired since then.
In the last 100 scheduled runs, nine instances of a canary job accounted for 228 hours of runner time. The other 91 combined took 24 minutes. The poster describes the canary as running about 25 hours, getting cancelled and returning the next day. They also report that 96% of gross usage came from macOS runners at 6.2 cents per minute.
Scout's supplied screenshot observations describe an infographic and GitHub usage breakdown consistent with the account's distinction between gross and billed usage. Those observations are not an independent billing audit. The entry credits Hermes with tracing the usage, not cancelling workflows or saving $500: no such remediation or actual bill is reported.
Prompt
Suggested prompt (written by Agents In Use, not the author's)
Source: X · @sudoPhoeniX
Frequently asked questions
Was the poster charged about $500?
No. About $500 was the reported gross usage; the billed amount was $0. The source attributes this to a public repository using standard runners.
What caused most of the runner time?
The poster says nine canary runs used 228 hours in the last 100 scheduled runs, while the other 91 together took 24 minutes.
Did Hermes disable the workflows?
The account describes an investigation and diagnosis. It does not say Hermes disabled workflows or changed the repository.
More details
Remaining steps
- The poster describes a recurring canary job dominating runner time and macOS runners dominating gross usage.
About this account
Hermes was delegated the investigation of unexplained runner usage and reportedly traced it to inherited fork automation. The post does not identify its exact tools or diagnostic commands.
Scout supplied verified public X API captures read live on 2026-10-29 and explicitly authorised their use instead of reopening X. This entry uses the supplied capture, not independent retrieval or reproduction. The supplied bio was reviewed for maker affiliation and self-promotion. No exact task prompt is supplied; the prompt is an editorial suggestion. Media descriptions are Scout observations; images and video were not independently viewed.
Credit: @sudoPhoeniX
Source published
Added to Agents In Use
Source checked
Tools and topics
Hermes Agent · GitHub Actions
GitHub Actions · runner usage · fork audit
Editorial completeness: 100/100. Measures documented fields, not agent performance or verified outcomes.