[samcrichard]

Why:

"Testing webhooks" walks through smee.io but, unlike "Using webhooks with GitHub Apps", doesn't mention that Smee channels are unauthenticated or that other tools can be used to receive webhooks locally.

What's being changed:

Adds one paragraph after the smee.io intro, reusing the wording already in
content/apps/creating-github-apps/registering-a-github-app/using-webhooks-with-github-apps.md
so the two pages are consistent.

Disclosure: I work at ngrok, one of the tools listed. The list and links are copied unchanged from the existing GitHub Apps page.

Check off the following:

• I have reviewed my changes in staging.
• For content changes, I have completed the self-review checklist.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[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
webhooks/testing-and-troubleshooting-webhooks/testing-webhooks.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.22 3.21 3.20 3.19	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.22 3.21 3.20 3.19

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

🤖 This comment is automatically generated.

[subatoi]

@samcrichard Thanks for raising a PR. To set expectations appropriately, it's rare that we'd change established documentation when it concerns a third-party provider. However, in this case I think it warrants at least a re-review from the relevant team. I can't guarantee a timeframe for their response, but I've marked the PR accordingly to add it to their queue.

[samcrichard]

Thank you!

[mchammer01]

@samcrichard 👋🏻 - thanks for improving our documentation ✨
LGTM

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

No active review issues are present, and the documentation changes clearly communicate Smee’s security limitation and suitable alternatives.

No open issues 🎉

What changed in this PR

This PR improves the webhook testing documentation by warning readers about Smee's unauthenticated channels and providing alternative tools for receiving webhook payloads locally.

Changes:

• Warns that Smee is intended only for development and testing because channels are unauthenticated.
• Lists ngrok, localtunnel, and Hookdeck Console as alternative webhook forwarding tools.
• Explains that alternative tools provide a public webhook URL and allow readers to skip Smee-specific steps.

File	Description
content/​webhooks/​testing-and-troubleshooting-webhooks/​testing-webhooks.md	Adds the Smee security caveat and documents alternative tools for forwarding webhook payloads to a local environment.

_{Review effort: Lite}

[github-actions]

Thanks very much for contributing! Your pull request has been merged 🎉 You should see your changes appear on the site in approximately 24 hours. If you're looking for your next contribution, check out our help wanted issues ⚡