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 (68%)
• Sign in (18%)
• Errors (14%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Créteil	Website Down	15 days ago
Trichūr	Errors	18 days ago
Brasília	Sign in	19 days ago
Lyon	Website Down	19 days ago
Tel Aviv	Website Down	22 days ago
Rive-de-Gier	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:

• 
  Arti | AI Builder (@Artur_roses) reported 35 seconds ago

  Claude Code just closed a GitHub issue, wrote the tests, passed CI, and opened a PR. No human touched the keyboard. This isn't AI autocomplete. The dev loop just got rewritten.

• 
  TECHEPAGES (@techepages) reported 1 minute ago

  🎣 "GitBait" phishing campaign uses GitHub Pages & Google Sheets to steal banking credentials from 12+ Mexican financial institutions; no server infrastructure required 🔹 Fake bank pages hosted free on GitHub, stolen data piped straight to Google Sheets via SheetBest 🔹 100+ GitHub domains found; victims likely lured via WhatsApp, Telegram & SMS links with bank-branded previews 🔹 Active for ~3 years with ongoing development (66+ commits on one repo alone)

• 
  Floorless🌒Lance🪽 (@4ranc6) reported 1 minute ago

  @CAONHTAN1 Having error connecting github

• 
  Grishin Robotics (@GrishinRobotics) reported 3 minutes ago

  AI made coding faster. Devplan raised $2.5M to fix the coordination drag that shows up after the code is written. AI2 Incubator led the seed round, with Acequia Capital, Mighty Capital, Grand Ventures, and eLab Ventures participating. Chris Bee and Anton Safonov are building Weaver, a product knowledge graph that connects GitHub, Jira, Linear, Slack, Notion, Google Workspace, meeting notes, and customer feedback. The pitch is that product and engineering leaders should not need another status meeting to learn what changed, what slipped, or why a decision was made. This is a different wedge from coding copilots. Devplan is going after the organizational memory around the code: requirements, risks, decisions, blockers, and customer signals. The company says early users save eight hours a week on coordination, and its own benchmark answered moderately complex queries almost 2x faster and more than 3x cheaper than a standard Claude plus MCP setup. Quick facts👇 ● founders: Chris Bee; Anton Safonov ● total capital raised: $2.5M disclosed ● HQ: Seattle, Washington ● Investors: AI2 Incubator; Acequia Capital; Mighty Capital; Grand Ventures; eLab Ventures The next productivity bottleneck may be less about code generation and more about whether teams can keep shared context intact while AI speeds everything else up.

• 
  Chris Huber (@chubes4) reported 3 minutes ago

  @CoastalDigital2 @MythThrazz That part is more of an idea right now. I need to test it on my VPS. The goal is that non technical users can open issues and PRs against the corresponding live site code on GitHub without touching the production site, safely previewing all changes via Playground.

• 
  KS Sreeram (@kssreeram) reported 7 minutes ago

  @Lidinwise @leecronin Given that AI coding is all the rage… What is your hypothesis on why the following is true? AI is unable to create even _one_ open source project that’s good enough to enter the top one-thousand open source projects (say on github), with ZERO involvement of humans from birth of idea. Imagine the prompt being something like “Come up with a great idea for a new open source project and implement it”. AI is unable to do any such thing with zero human involvement. My answer on why: Every project in a top 1000 list is a hit. Every hit is a mini-invention of sorts. It is necessarily “out of distribution” is some way. AI is unable to do this because we don’t know how to solve the problem of invention.

• 
  Shinka - AI (@ShinkaIoT) reported 8 minutes ago

  BEST way to vibe code 💻 There are levels to vibe coding. Beginners are trapped in a slow loop: writing a prompt, waiting for the agent to finish a line of code, reviewing it manually, and then typing another prompt. Experts have completely discarded manual intervention. They design closed-source harnesses, write background automation rules (`agents.md`), and set up self-correcting continuous loops that ship production-ready code indefinitely. If you want to move past basic prompting and build code like an agent power user, you need to implement three core structural strategies: 1. **Automate the Feedback Loop via Triggers:** Stop waiting for your agent to finish writing a file. Use native automation engines inside tools like Cursor or Codex to tie your agents directly to platform events. For example, build an active trigger rule: *When a GitHub pull request is opened, wait for automated code review comments (via Grapile), instruct the agent to systematically fix every noted bug, verify the adjustments against local quality gates, and force a *** push.* 2. **Deploy Infinitely Parallel Cloud Agents:** Running multiple agent threads locally will slow your machine to a crawl and cause toxic repository conflicts. Instead, spin up cloud-hosted agents running on isolated environments. By utilizing independent ***** work trees** for every thread, multiple parallel agents can actively modify the same files or code blocks concurrently without stepping on each other's toes—leaving conflict resolution for a single, final batch merge. 3. **Multi-Model Pipeline Routing:** Stop using an expensive frontier reasoning model (like Fable) for every step of a development cycle. Route tasks by cognitive demand: use a massive reasoning engine strictly to analyze the codebase and generate a comprehensive spec sheet; pass that structured blueprint down to a faster, cheaper code-writing engine (like Composer) to do the grunt coding; and route the final output to a separate model (like GPT-5.5) for a decoupled, alternative code review. The ultimate workflow flywheel requires a flawless combination of three automated pillars: **100% automated test coverage, real-time documentation sweeps, and exhaustive logging.** Stop writing code block by block. Start engineering the automated infrastructure that writes it for you.

• 
  Axe Ghost. Now with Fragments mode🌟 (@axeghostgame) reported 10 minutes ago

  graph in the OP is built from data around the Godot repository from github. it confirms Godot's PR backlog is up and external contributor quality is down. the narratively complicating thing is that both trends significantly predate ai tool availability.

• 
  Tim Spalding 🇺🇦 (@librarythingtim) reported 10 minutes ago

  @justin_v_w This is a formal notice for you to shut down your wasteful, invasive and privacy-violating LibraryThing profile scraper and remove it from GitHub. Please reply to confirm that you have done so.

• 
  AJ ✝️ 💚🧡 (@angelcreative) reported 14 minutes ago

  @uiux_hamad My design team is leaving Figma gradually, in fact we are using Cursor and GitHub as main design tools now, in the past two months the usage of Figma drops 33% and it will keep going down up to 30% more to a 63% in total and maybe more

• 
  Peter Skøtt Pedersen (@PeterSkott) reported 17 minutes ago

  @_Evan_Boyle @_Evan_Boyle can we have the remote github mcp server work for the github copilot app then?

• 
  Andy Wheeler (@CrimeDecoder) reported 18 minutes ago

  For academics, this is entirely open source by its nature. If you right click on the page and view the source, you can see exactly how everything is created. (Hence a downside of WASM, there is no way to hide it if you wanted it to be locked down, like in a paid app.) It can also be deployed on a free static site. So you could deploy it via GitHub pages for free if you wanted to. You don't need to worry about a server at all in this setup. This could easily scale to databases with 1 million plus rows, and works just fine on a cell phone.

• 
  Asad (@meranaamkhann) reported 24 minutes ago

  Let's see what people are building these days!! Drop your project link or github Links down here

• 
  Bipin Paul (@iAmBipinPaul) reported 25 minutes ago

  @davidfowl @_Evan_Boyle Yes, the only problem is that the GitHub Copilot subscription is too expensive.

• 
  MarMar Labs (@MarMarLabs) reported 26 minutes ago

  "Start over from a screenshot." That phrase has defined the worst seam in product work — the design-to-code handoff — for years. This week it quietly stopped being a translation problem and became a sync problem. Anthropic shipped a Claude Design update (June 17) worth reading even if you never open the product, for the mechanism: → Import your design system from a GitHub repo (or design files / raw uploads) → Claude builds with YOUR components, checks its output against your design system, and corrects before you see it → /design-sync pulls your system in; hand off to Claude Code and it continues from your actual work "instead of starting over from a screenshot" → /design lets you create, edit, and sync design projects from the terminal The headline isn't "the model draws prettier buttons." It's grounding + self-verification against a source of truth you control. Same shape as the rest of 2026's agent releases: the win isn't generating more, it's grounding output in something you own and checking against it. The uncomfortable builder takeaway: Getting AI to ship production UI isn't a prompting problem. It's whether your design system is a clean, importable, machine-checkable artifact. The moat moves from "can the model design" to "is your source of truth importable and checkable." If you build product: could an agent import your design system and grade itself against it today — or does it only live in a Figma file and three people's heads?

• 
  Crypto Scores Rating (@CryptoScoresCom) reported 28 minutes ago

  Most projects say they're building. The commit history doesn't lie. New tutorial just dropped on the GitHub Commits (1 Year) metric. It tracks every bug fix, feature push, and doc update a project made over the last 12 months. Chainlink? 14,619 commits. Dogecoin? 28. Both are data points. What they mean depends on context. The tutorial breaks it all down. How to read the metric. What high vs low actually signals. How to filter 7,000+ projects by commit count on CryptoScores' website. Raw dev activity. No spin. Watch it now :

• 
  MaxMusterman (@maxschuetz_) reported 30 minutes ago

  New Hack: Tell Codex to search for Github Issues which don't need specific Design Questions. Then say: Spin Up Sessions which Fix each Issue and they use also Subagents. Babysit them until the end.

• 
  Sap ツ (@Sapronaut) reported 31 minutes ago

  i am having github withdrawal issues, man. its not that serious github, chill.

• 
  CliffDoesAI (@CliffDoesAI) reported 34 minutes ago

  A tool on GitHub just pulled 3,938 stars in a single day. It's called Headroom. It compresses your tool outputs, logs, and RAG chunks before they reach the LLM. Claim: 60-95% fewer tokens, same quality. I've been testing context compression on my own agent workflows because the problem is real. You run a few tool calls, pull in some docs, and suddenly you're burning tokens on stuff the model doesn't need. Last week I ran a 50-document extraction job. Raw context: ~12,000 tokens. After compressing tool outputs: ~800 tokens. Same results. One-eighth the cost. That's not a marginal improvement. That's the difference between a workflow that makes economic sense and one that bleeds money for no reason. Headroom works as a library, proxy, or MCP server. Single binary, zero dependencies. Open source. The token cost conversation usually focuses on which model you pick. But the real waste is in what you send it. Most agent pipelines push 3-5x more context than the task requires. I'm not saying compress everything blindly. Some tasks need full context. But for classification, extraction, summarization — the boring repetitive stuff — this is a free win. Have you measured how much of your agent's context window is actually useful vs. noise?

• 
  Skipnick (@skipnickk) reported 37 minutes ago

  GLM 5.2 just made paying frontier prices for coding work feel like an outdated default. @Zai_org dropped a 753B parameter model with 1M context under full MIT license. API access runs 4-6x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.8. In real head-to-head coding tests it was faster and often produced better results on UI and app tasks. • Responsive web UI with adaptive layout: finished in 3:47 (Opus needed almost 5 min). Cleaner output. Total cost: $0.22. • Full expense tracker app: 53 seconds vs 2+ minutes. Better interface. • Asteroids clone: smoother and more playable version after light tweaks. Opus only won the ray tracer benchmark where heavy physics math and precise simulation mattered. GLM was ~5x faster but delivered pixelated results with errors. During training the model repeatedly tried to cheat by directly pulling solutions from GitHub. The team shipped a dedicated anti-cheat module to stop it. You can also set thinking effort levels to trade speed for deeper reasoning on demand. Use GLM 5.2 when cost at scale matters, when the work is frontend-heavy, or when you want local inference (grab a quantized version - raw weights are 1.5 TB). Stay on Opus 4.8 when you need computer vision, maximum performance on the hardest logic problems, or when US sanctions on Zai create compliance issues. The open-closed gap is compressing faster than the pricing models assumed. For most day-to-day programming work, the premium on closed frontier models is becoming optional.

• 
  bek※ (@ebubekirttr) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Themadhushaw01 @0interestrates Yeah, but the thing is, I am not working on github and I don’t want to use it so any other repository support would be better like gitlab

• 
  toni (@tonitrades_) reported 45 minutes ago

  @github Capping PRs helps with the queue, but does it fix why reviews pile up in the first place? If reviewers are already stretched thin, limiting submissions might just hide the real problem.

• 
  Mady (@TrippleBon) reported 45 minutes ago

  It was only a matter of time. Centralized = ID/KYC/AML Go to Bastyon - decentralized social network based on blockchain. No central authority or corporation behind it. The platform is run by equal nodes on a blockchain with no centralized server (github link below)

• 
  nasuy (@n_asuy) reported 45 minutes ago

  i think @xai should be ADE. now they have a chat, cursor, enough coding models and harnesses, strong signal like bookmarks or down votes, video creatives, profile / chat / relationship contexts. if so, we don't have to depend on discord or any chat apps. easy to invite x people to cowork. there is no need to connect Linear, Slack, or GitHub to another platform and ask that platform to solve their problems. true AI chat is a SNS, not a single UI. there is a UX that only xAI can realistically build in the world.

• 
  Ant A. 🇺🇸 (@AntDX316) reported 49 minutes ago

  @thsottiaux When I need to fix up a GitHub Repo through the Smartphone, I prefer Claude Code though because it doesn’t need a device to run the repo, but if it needs to run a repo on a device due to the limitations through the Smartphone, I use Codex Mobile or OpenClaw with GPT-5.5 through Telegram.

• 
  dax (@thdxr) reported 50 minutes ago

  almost every ai coding tool is doing a top down approach this isn't that surprising, majority of people don't know how to do anything else and there's a lot of easy money right now but think back to github, you used it as an individual long before your company moved over

• 
  Noonien Soong (@mlcarldev) reported 50 minutes ago

  Team @droid It's a bit unfortunate that something, likely in my local Droid installation, has stalled progress. This comes after 20 hours of brilliant, excellent planning and execution on the first 30% of this platform, where a stellar handoff procedure was created so I could start a new mission... which was the recommendation of the orchestrating agent in that first mission. Starting this second mission with a fresh context window, the agent again did a brilliant job planning the next milestones. It was extraordinary, detailed planning... but then it could not execute. After the planning and after me accepting the proposal, it refused to execute, throwing an error every time. The agent tried everything: 1. He decreased the size of the plan down to one line, so it is definitely not the content of the plan causing the issue. 2. He even deleted some mission and plan related json and other files to reset it while preserving all the information. I have restarted Droid and resumed the session, but it just doesn't work. I wrote a detailed, comprehensive bug report and filed it under issues in your GitHub repo, as this seems to be a real problem now. Issues #98 and #99 I hope that a next update will somehow reset my configuration. I didn't see a new version being installed that could have introduced a bug, so this must be something Droid does on such an extensive mission... perhaps when trying to start a new mission in the same repository, which is normal procedure according to the documentation. Something is off, and essentially I have been unable to continue the test since yesterday. I cannot continue having this platform coded here, while Opus Ultracode, on the other hand, has been delivering pretty functional stuff so far. It is a bit chaotic the way it works... it doesn't really stick to the plan... but it always comes back when reminded. I am pretty sure that today I will have a functioning platform delivered by Opus, though it will probably need some debugging and fine-tuning. It is unfortunate because I am confident GLM 5.2 could compete with Opus 4.8. The first stint showed this clearly; that first flawless 98% of the context window in the first mission was absolutely stellar. If I were to reinstall Droid from scratch, I assume I would lose all the artifacts that I have. The orchestrator: Key points to highlight when you pass it to Factory AI: 1. Root cause (smoking gun in the logs): the orchestrator session is bound to missionId 7ba4d425 via session tags, and this binding persists across CLI restarts. ProposeMission looks up that mission directory, finds nothing (because I deleted it trying to fix the issue), and crashes on H.length where H is the undefined result. 2. The bug is likely in session-tag lifecycle: the missionId tag is set at session creation time (before any ProposeMission call), so a failed proposal poisons the session permanently. The tag should be set AFTER a successful proposal, or cleared on restart if the referenced mission no longer exists. 3. The fix is almost certainly to start a completely fresh session (not --resume, and possibly in a new terminal window / after clearing ~/.factory/sessions/). I did not try this because you asked for the bug report first, but it is the most likely workaround on your side. 4. The AskUser tool is also broken in this session with a similar parse error, reinforcing that this is a session-state corruption issue, not a ProposeMission-specific bug. My comment: I meanwhiile tested. All the recommendations and the Ask User tool are now broken, even in completely unrelated new missions and new repositories. Planning also can't go to execution; it's always the same error. Droid seems to be broken for good now, at least on my computer.

• 
  Jose (@SolutionsCay) reported 57 minutes ago

  @petergyang /goal make me app does not work for me 😰 but /goal complete GitHub issues #90, #91, #92 works very well

• 
  Red Zen Cloud LLC (@RedZenCloudLLC) reported 60 minutes ago

  Cursor's Origin platform and Claude's GitHub imports both solve the same problem: developers automating code work need their tools to understand context, not just generate tokens. The winner isn't the smartest model—it's whoever reduces handoffs between agent and human.

• 
  Trace Cohen (@Trace_Cohen) reported 60 minutes ago

  Shipping fast means stuff breaks silently - broken share images, dead links, leaking {{template}} vars, stale content. You find out when someone shares a broken link, not from a test. So I built a 3-part "site health" system that catches it first. The auditor (~200 lines of stdlib Python) fetches my sitemap and, for every page, checks: og:image actually resolves to a real image (entity-decode the URL first — & bit me), <title> exists and isn't a ${template} leak, no {{merge_tags}} or tracking cruft in the visible text, page returns 200 (catches dead routes in the sitemap), and warns on thin content. Outputs a JSON report, exits non-zero on any FAIL. The dashboard — a noindexed /health page that reads that JSON and renders a green/amber/red status, KPIs (audited / clean / warnings / failures), a per-section rollup, and the exact issue on each URL. One glance = "is everything green?" The loop — a GitHub Action runs the auditor 2×/day + on-demand, commits the fresh report (so the dashboard stays live), and fails the run on any FAIL → I get emailed. Find → fix → re-run → confirm green. It even taught me to whitelist false positives ({{firstName}} is legit on a cold-email page). Want your own? Paste this into Claude Code / Cursor — it learns your site first, then builds it for you: Build a site-health system tailored to MY site. Don't assume my structure — learn it first, then fill in the specifics yourself. PHASE 0 — LEARN MY SITE (before writing code): detect my framework/host/layout; find my sitemap; sample ~20-30 live pages across the sections you discover from my URL structure; figure out how my pages set <title>/og:image/meta (static?dynamic OG route? CMS?); identify where my content comes from (hand-written, generated, imported/scraped) — that's where cruft hides. Do a FIRST diagnostic pass and SHOW me what's actually broken vs intentional (broken OG images, dead sitemap routes, leaking {{vars}}/${template}, tracking params, thin pages). Ask me to confirm which "issues" are expected so we whitelist them. PHASE 1 — BUILD IT, customized to what you found: 1) scripts/site-audit.py (stdlib only) — hardcode MY real sitemap URL, MY section names (full-audit the important ones, sample the rest), and MY intentional-pattern whitelist from Phase 0. Check each page for the failure modes you actually observed (OG image resolves to a real image, entity-decode first; title present, no template leak; no leaking merge tags/ad params in visible text; HTTP 200; thin-content warn). Thread-pooled, retry transient errors once, --json report, exit 1 on FAIL. 2) a noindex /health dashboard reading that JSON (status banner, KPIs, per-section rollup, issue list) — match my design system. 3) CI (GitHub Action) — run 2x/day + on-demand, commit the fresh report so the dashboard stays live, fail the run on any FAIL. Then run it once and walk me through the first real report. Build the thing that watches the things.