[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 3.18	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.22 3.21 3.20 3.19 3.18

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!