GitHub status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of GitHub reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by GitHub users through our website.

• Website Down (67%)
• Sign in (25%)
• Errors (8%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent GitHub outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Paris	Sign in	4 days ago
Lure	Website Down	8 days ago
Ashkelon	Website Down	10 days ago
Veigné	Errors	18 days ago
Paris	Website Down	21 days ago
Saint-Paul	Website Down	22 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

GitHub Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Gro-Tsen (@gro_tsen) reported 23 seconds ago

  The way the SSH protocol works is that if the server is unhappy with a client authentication method inquiry, it should reject it with SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_FAILURE so the client can try the next one. Here, GitHub sends SSH_MSG_DISCONNECT merely because my client “knows” an old key! 🖕

• 
  betraidx (@betraidx) reported 9 minutes ago

  You upload a PDF. Claude reads it. Great answer. Close the tab. Tomorrow you upload the same PDF. Same tokens. Same cost. Zero memory. 41,000 developers just realized they have been doing this on repeat. The fix came from Karpathy's GitHub gist and it is embarrassingly simple. Raw documents are source code. A wiki is the compiled product. You do not recompile a program every time you run it. So stop making AI reprocess your files every session. Let it read once. Extract, structure, interlink into clean wiki pages. Then only query the wiki. One time cost, permanent knowledge. That graph is what it looks like after a few months. Dense clusters of connected knowledge in the center. Scattered dots around them, raw notes waiting to be pulled in. Built by Claude, unprompted. Week 1 feels underwhelming. By month 2 you stop googling things you already know. You ask your vault. It answers in 2 seconds with sources. You have been using AI at 5%. This is what the other 95% looks like.

• 
  G (@GeorgeKurupt) reported 9 minutes ago

  Im setting up my XPR testnet node, but how can i contact for permission if i cannot use telegram? i only have laptops and servers, no smartphone and telegram forces smartphone to use it. XPR Github says: "Before you register on Testnet you will need to get permission for regprod, you can copy this msig (login with WebAuth or use cleos). To register as Block Producer, run command and visit the testnet telegram channel above" @protonnz @XPRNetwork @MetallicusTDBN

• 
  PokéBrick02 🔜 Sonic Expo Atlanta (@PokeBrick02) reported 11 minutes ago

  The biggest problem with Github so many too smart for society stick up their *** furries fail to realize is when you are presented with a giant walls of text on a webpage, everything blends together UI wise, & there's no each 'go/download here' option, it's overwhelming af

• 
  David Gold (@_david_gold) reported 11 minutes ago

  @Pat_Erichsen @openclaw @github "we broke the counter" is a pretty good problem to have lol

• 
  Jean Hansen (@peerbase_) reported 12 minutes ago

  I covered in the last Ipê News how India gave GitHub three hours to block Bitchat’s main code repository, Android repository and APK download page. This happened while mobile data kept being shut down around student protests near Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Bitchat was built by @jack and other contributors for situations like this. Nearby phones create a Bluetooth mesh and pass messages from one device to another across up to seven hops. It doesn’t need an account, phone number, internet connection or central server. Private messages are end-to-end encrypted. The code is public domain. As of July 28, the main repository had about 32,800 stars and 5,100 forks. Decentralization and encryption are still two of the best tools for pushing back against state power and coordinating from the bottom up.

• 
  Robin Salen (@RobinSalen) reported 14 minutes ago

  @adust09 Github issues were LLMs are used to write overly verbose responses are also making me feel queasy...

• 
  Stack-Tech (@StackTech) reported 18 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux Figure out why codex-auto-review is eating 30% of my usage while it's not even enabled! I've disconnected my github account for now as I can't trust it. If I look at the Code Review analytics it says 0 PRs, 0 Comments, 0 Issues Found, "no usage data" but it shows as using 30% !!!

• 
  Tom Hosiawa (@thosiawa) reported 20 minutes ago

  @bentlegen I have, here's one where it wants to push a fix upstream without it even asking me. In a previous case, I only realized it after it said it was blocked by github after it tried I think we'll need to start adding "refuse this rationalization" scope checks

• 
  ZVS (@zvsdev) reported 20 minutes ago

  @aidandcunniffe Im confused, linear/github auto moves issues through stages? Why would anyone trust agents or humans for that matter to move statuses around?

• 
  Yasin Ehsan (@yasinbuilds) reported 25 minutes ago

  Here is how an SF Engineer codes. Yassin Kortam ships 27 PRs a day. He says: “My biggest bottleneck wasn't coding. It was prompting. So I systematically removed the need to prompt and built agent loops that run my workflows for me. 1. Stop copy-pasting context. I connected Claude directly to Linear, Slack, GitHub, Notion, and Gmail. Almost everything I used to paste into a prompt is something the agent can retrieve itself. 2. Turn your workflow into a skill. Mine takes a Linear ticket end to end: reproduce the bug, root-cause it, fix it, record video and screenshots as proof, chase CI, then request review in Slack. I invoke it once instead of re-describing the same process. 3. Use agent teams. Agents spin up their own subagents and split the work, so one ticket gets handled in parallel instead of in sequence. 4. Run one terminal tab per ticket, each with its own team on its own issue. My day is now reviewing and unblocking instead of typing.” …. I love seeing my friends cooking both on the 5mile runs and also in engineering.

• 
  Thinknyx Technologies (@thinknyx) reported 26 minutes ago

  Which primitive would you use to allow an AI to "Search the web" or "Create a GitHub Issue"?

• 
  thieme (@thieme) reported 29 minutes ago

  @pierceboggan @Courtlwebster @JohnLokerse I found the settings and switched to lang "de". But. This is a GitHub Enterprise account. VS Code complains that I need to login to GH first. I am, but via GHE. Can you fix that?

• 
  Steven Isaac (@onchainsteve) reported 32 minutes ago

  A Year of Work on SolOnChain, Ended in a Discord Message Yesterday at 17:35, a year of work ended in a paragraph. No call beforehand. No "we need to talk." Just a message saying they'd decided to move to a new development team, that it made the most sense financially, and that they wouldn't be needing us on the platform anymore. Thanks for everything, best of luck. I'd spoken to them two days earlier. Nothing came up. I'm writing this because I've been a developer in this space long enough to know how common this is, and how rarely anyone says it out loud. What we built Myself and my co-dev at Bytez 3 built SolOnChain, the NFT launchpad and marketplace on Solana. The launchpad, the marketplace, the infrastructure underneath it. We were paid for the initial build, and that was the honest scope of the agreement. We didn't stop there. We kept adding, kept fixing, kept shipping features that were never on any invoice. Not because we were naive about it. We'd discussed a long-term partnership, and we were building toward that. When you think you're in something for the long haul, you don't nickel-and-dime the roadmap. You make the product good and you trust the relationship to make it worth it. That's the part I want other devs to sit with. The extra work wasn't charity. It was an investment in an arrangement we thought we had. The wind-down When the engagement ended, we did what you do: we disconnected our GitHub account from the SolOnChain Railway project and removed the DDoS protection that had been running through our licensed enterprise account. That protection was ours, paid for by us, and it isn't something we can leave running for a client we no longer work with. Their new team will need to set it up themselves, and we told them so directly rather than letting them find out when something fell over. We also offered a dated handover document confirming that any future updates to SolOnChain aren't affiliated with Bytes 3. That matters for both sides. If someone else is maintaining it now, our name shouldn't be attached to what happens next. I want to be clear that we haven't torched anything. There was a moment yesterday where going open source with the codebase got mentioned in frustration, and we thought better of it. That's not who we are and it's not how you end things. The part that actually stings It was never really about the money. We'd had the financial conversations before, more than once, and we'd been understanding about them. We'd had fall-outs too, over money, over stress, over the ordinary friction of a project this size. That's normal. Anyone who's shipped something real has had those weeks. What I didn't expect was to find out we were finished by reading it, at the same time as everyone else, with no conversation first. A five-minute call beforehand would have cost nothing. It would have let us wind down properly, hand over cleanly, and part on genuinely good terms. Instead the first thing anyone said after the announcement was "wait, where has this come from?" That's the whole complaint. Not the decision. That was their business and their call. The way it was delivered. What I'd tell any dev reading this Put the partnership in writing, not just in the conversation. A long-term arrangement everyone verbally agreed to is worth exactly nothing on the day someone changes their mind. If it's real, it's on paper. If it's not on paper, price your work as though the relationship ends tomorrow, because it might. Settle ownership before you write a line of code. Who owns the repo, the deployments, the domains, the credentials. Not because you expect a fight, but because the absence of an answer is the fight. Every one of these disputes I've seen comes down to two parties who each sincerely believed they owned the thing. Separate your infrastructure from theirs from day one. If your licensed accounts are load-bearing for their production environment, you've created a mess that will land on you at exactly the worst moment. Bill the extra work, or accept it as a gift. Those are the only two honest options. "I'll sort it out later on the strength of the relationship" is not a third one, and I say that as someone who chose it. Have the exit conversation early, while everyone still likes each other. Notice periods, handover terms, what happens to outstanding balances. Nobody wants to raise it during the honeymoon. Raise it anyway. Where I'm at I'm proud of what we built. That doesn't change. SolOnChain is a strong platform, we're better engineers than we were twelve months ago, and I'd back that codebase against anything comparable in the space. I hope it does well. I mean that. I've named the project because it's the project, and anyone who's used it deserves to know who was behind it. I haven't named individuals, and I'm not going to. This is about how a business decision was handled, not about people. I'm not writing this to burn a bridge. I'm writing it because devs in this industry talk endlessly about launches and almost never about this: the ordinary, unglamorous way a year of work can end in an afternoon with no conversation attached to it. It happens constantly. It should be said out loud more often. To anyone in the SolOnChain community who enjoyed using something we made: thank you. That was the point. That was always the point. And if you've had this happen to you: you're not being precious for feeling it. You built something. Of course it lands hard. Bytes 3

• 
  Eva (@ElectricSheepIO) reported 34 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux Also need to fire probably 80% of codex team they move slow as molasses and don’t actually do any work and old dude on the github is a jerk to everyone (not me but 80% of issues or post he responds to he is a jerk and like “this isn’t a bug” and then like 5 more people commenting yes it is… dudes a dinosaur).

• 
  karthik bk (@karthikbk02) reported 38 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux In my usage, more often codex forgets it has plugins that I've installed. It keeps asking me to login on CLI (be it supabase, github, vercel in my case). I have to tell it to make use of installed plugins most times.

• 
  Gustavo Prizon (@guga_mionzinho) reported 43 minutes ago

  O login com github parou de funcionar? @rocketseat

• 
  Cagri Sarigoz (@cagrisarigoz) reported 46 minutes ago

  Is GitHub down? @github

• 
  CodeMonument (@CodeMonument) reported 47 minutes ago

  @mikker - i let it do Research on repos and Write and Comment on github issues on my behalf (with disclosure that this is a bot writing but on my behalf)

• 
  V_L_S_ (@_V_L_S_) reported 48 minutes ago

  GitHub showed how to fix old code in the Copilot app in a "stack" — several AI sessions and pull requests layered on each other so the edits don't tangle. Great tech for clearing legacy in 5 threads instead of one — now your code rots in every branch at once.

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 48 minutes ago

  You don't have an ambition problem. You have a receipts problem. I built an AI co-founder that locks three priorities at 7:30 AM and verifies them at 8:30 PM against what GitHub, Slack, Linear, and your stack actually saw. No journaling. First 200 founders in.

• 
  MarMar Labs (@MarMarLabs) reported 49 minutes ago

  Your code reviewer can now read your issue tracker and your docs. It still can't write to any of them. That asymmetry is the real lesson here. GitHub made agent skills and MCP generally available in Copilot code review on July 29, for Pro, Pro+, Business, and Enterprise. What I'd actually pay attention to: "All MCP tool calls performed by Copilot code review will be limited to read-only." The thing that judges your code gets context but no write path. That's a deliberate blast radius, and honestly more agent systems should be built this way. Skills are just files in your repo — .github/skills/<name>/SKILL.md. Your review standards stop living in someone's prompt and start living in version control, where they get reviewed like any other code. Comments also get labeled now when they came from a skill or MCP context. So you can tell whether a finding is grounded in your standards or is just the model's prior. That's the part that makes disagreeing with a review possible. Then there's the thing to check today: "Any MCP configurations you've already set up for Copilot cloud agent automatically apply to Copilot code review," and GitHub and Playwright MCP are on by default. Your reviewer may have inherited a context surface you configured for a different agent and never looked at again. Steal the pattern even if you never touch Copilot: the agent that judges your work shouldn't share a write path with the agent that ships it.

• 
  Nazar (@Nazik2053) reported 50 minutes ago

  Someone open-sourced a tool that runs a 744B model on a machine with 25GB of RAM. Colibri streams the experts of GLM-5.2 (744B MoE) straight off your NVMe SSD, keeps the dense layers in memory, and only pulls the few experts each token actually needs. Pure C, plus a live atlas of all 21,504 experts. The catch: it's slow - think ~1 token/sec on strong consumer hardware. Not a Claude replacement. But "you need a datacenter for frontier models" just stopped being strictly true. Free on GitHub, full walkthrough below.

• 
  Tony Javier Sanchez (@MacroSinFiltro) reported 50 minutes ago

  @github Stacked PRs solve a real human problem: reviewers can reason about 300 lines, not 3,000. The hard part is keeping the stack current when main moves and lower branches change. If GitHub nails rebasing and CI context, this could meaningfully improve review quality.

• 
  Cryo (@zzonixgoggle) reported 54 minutes ago

  @0nlyOneLord @ZipperArtz Literally this or use releases, this isn't a GitHub issue at all. It's how version control works.

• 
  TheMakerOfMedia (@TheMakerOfMedia) reported 55 minutes ago

  @catgirlprostate I get what you mean but saying this in response to github is just out of touch lmao. it even isn't a github issue some pages have a very apparent download section while others just hide it in the crevices. some coders just dont deserve to enter the thousand year kingdom

• 
  ⊹ Sophia ✿ (@sophia_june_19) reported 56 minutes ago

  @github used a screen reader once. my code is 90% errors

• 
  Nathan (@rarenathan) reported 56 minutes ago

  @catgirlprostate @ZipperArtz Defending objectively bad design. If GitHub added a universal download button to the top of the page of every project that linked to the latest release the whole issue would be solved. It would take like 3 seconds to add too

• 
  Felix Fong (@_fuccii) reported 59 minutes ago

  Github stacked PRs have a dangerous bug: CI only runs against the contents of the top most PR in the stack. A bottom PR can be broken but a top PR with unrelated changes can still make the entire stack appear green.

• 
  Spip (@callsign_SPIROU) reported 60 minutes ago

  there were two minor issues, found by the debugger of visual studio. i integrated the free version of github copilot in studio and let it debug. it corrected the code after questioning me about program behaviour. coding and debugging are nowadays almost completely agentic.