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 (55%)
• Errors (30%)
• Sign in (15%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Delme	Sign in	11 hours ago
Lyaud	Website Down	11 hours ago
Catania	Errors	3 days ago
Inverness	Website Down	15 days ago
Quito	Sign in	16 days ago
Junín	Errors	16 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:

• 
  Fake (@Fakemid_) reported 1 minute ago

  @TheSymbolman You are making a mistake, you dont Want to go Per core, Go all core, have it on Negative and test between 15 - 25, Also like Elias said, Download the CoreCycler GUI, Put it in folder of CoreCycler from sp00n's Github and run it on the settings he sent (Prime95 Light SSE Preset, Let it run for 30m - 1H, Look for errors, If any core has an error just lover it by 5 from 25 and experiment.

• 
  Vikas(Vik) Malpani| AI for US Real Estate (@vikasmalpani) reported 1 minute ago

  GitHub just shipped an agent whose entire job is deciding when a human should look. It checks every open pull request every 15 minutes, and on almost all of them it does nothing. Sit with how strange that is. For a year the whole pitch for coding agents was do the work, review my code, ship the PR. This one's value is the inverse. It runs constantly and stays quiet, and the product is the small set of PRs it decides are actually worth your time. That is the shift people are missing. Once an agent can act continuously, the scarce resource stops being how much it can do. It becomes how much of that is worth a human's attention. An agent that pings you on every pull request is just faster noise. One that surfaces the three that genuinely need judgment is leverage. The honest problem is the deciding. Tune the filter too eager and it cries wolf until you mute it. Too cautious and it silently ships the one change you needed to catch. Getting when to interrupt a human right is harder than getting the work right, and nobody has a clean metric for it yet. So here is the bet. The next moat in agent products is not a smarter model. It is a better sense of when to stay quiet. If you are building with agents, the thing worth obsessing over is not how much work they can generate. It is how well they protect the one budget that does not scale: your attention.

• 
  Bash (@bashirbuilds) reported 2 minutes ago

  Your Stripe account can be healthy while your checkout is broken. OpenAI can be operational while your AI feature is failing. GitHub can be up while your deployment workflow is stuck. That’s the problem I’m building Reeno around. Dependency uptime is not the same as product health. Your monitoring should tell you when the thing your customers actually use stops working.

• 
  WuBu ⪋ WaefreBeorn 🇺🇸 👑 (@waefrebeorn) reported 5 minutes ago

  hey @Teknium @yeahfortommy please add the amd portal too even if tou have to send tommy into the AMD headquarters to get them to fix the links (you have to sign up for american then link through github, then you can access the models free, tommy needs to pull teeth but they have free api)

• 
  1mmモジュール (@1mm_module) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Eto_Madjas I’ve fixed the issue you reported. Please download the latest version from GitHub. I apologize that testing took some time, as the issue was related to the installation process. However, I don’t have access to an operating system with the same language settings as your PC, so I was only able to test the fix in a virtual environment. I hope this resolves the issue.

• 
  8Bit🦞 (@0rdlibrary) reported 10 minutes ago

  Our SOLgpt drops this Friday. I'm going to debut the github this week before hand. And go over each feature, including voice trading. What is a SOL gpt? Simply put it is... "An open, non-custodial control plane — vault once, then grant any AI model, any chain, and any app or exchange scoped, revocable access Vault once. Then grant a model, an MCP server, a venue, or a holder key scoped, revocable access — never a hot key, never auto-sign. Live tickets stay Solana-primary (Jupiter, DFlow, Phoenix). Phantom Connect may surface other-chain addresses; the desk does not land live EVM or other-chain trades. Type it. Speak it. Sign it yourself. The model prepares unsigned tickets. Your wallet is the only thing that can move funds. The lobster only speaks."

• 
  YVR τrader (@YVR_Trader) reported 11 minutes ago

  Your AI coding agent has a memory problem and you’re paying for it in tokens. @SomaSubnet #SN114 is now integrating with GitHub Copilot to compress that bloated context before it hits the model. Same workflow, same DeepSeek V4 Pro, just 10% fewer tokens burned on every session. Think of it as a tax refund for your inference bill. For teams running agents all day, that 10% compounds fast: $1M spend becomes $100K back in your pocket. No model swap. No workflow overhaul. Just plug SOMA between your agent and Copilot and watch the token meter slow down. Payments in fiat or $TAO. Early users get $5 in credits.

• 
  Павел Гансон (@PashaGanson) reported 13 minutes ago

  @colinsolvely @openclaw Hi! Could I ask for your advice on OpenClaw architecture? I’m just getting started, so some of these questions may be basic, but I want to build the system properly from the beginning. My current setup: * Two VPS servers running OpenClaw 2.0, with roughly 10 agents on each. * The same VPS servers also run several small business applications I vibe-coded. Some support client-facing processes. * Previously, the agents developed and modified code directly on the production servers. * I also have a MacBook and an always-on Windows PC, both running Codex. I’m trying to understand how to organize the development lifecycle without unnecessary complexity: * Should the OpenClaw agents stay on the same servers as the production applications, or should I move them to separate machines or VPS servers? * Where should code be written, built, and tested: Windows/WSL, the Mac, a dedicated development server, or close to production? * Should I have one central coding agent or a separate coding agent for each OpenClaw instance? * What is the best way to connect Codex, OpenClaw, GitHub, and the servers? * What should the simplest reliable workflow look like: a product agent discovers a problem → development → review/testing → deployment → production verification? * How many OpenClaw instances and machines do I actually need? This isn’t a large SaaS product: most applications are used by only a few employees, although some client-facing processes should remain reliable. If you were designing this setup from scratch, what would be the simplest reliable architecture you would choose?🙏

• 
  Kun Chen (@kunchenguid) reported 14 minutes ago

  @petergyang yo @myfirstmate peter just told me his skills are all at user level. backpass currently only runs things at project level i want a proposal for making backpass support a user level run. put that into a github issue use fable for peter

• 
  Straggler Liu | AI & Semis (@StragglerLiu) reported 16 minutes ago

  NVIDIA($NVDA ) Is Paying $14B for a Company With $150M Revenue. That's Not Financial Logic — It's Ecosystem Control. NVIDIA is in advanced talks to acquire Hugging Face for ~$14 billion ($12.9B acquisition + $1B retention), per Bloomberg. To put that in perspective: Hugging Face does ~$150M in annual revenue. That's ~86x revenue. Microsoft paid ~1.6x revenue for GitHub. Google paid ~3.5x revenue for DeepMind. NVIDIA is paying 20-50x more on a revenue multiple basis. The premium is not for revenue. It's for control of the AI developer ecosystem. What is NVIDIA buying? Hugging Face hosts 500,000+ models, 250,000+ datasets, and serves millions of developers. It is the single most important distribution channel for open-source AI. If you build AI, you use Hugging Face. That makes it the front door to AI development. Why NVIDIA is paying this premium: 1. The "NVIDIA triple lock." NVIDIA's hardware lead (GPU) is real. Its software lead (CUDA) is a moat. But the third lock — the developer workflow — was missing. Hugging Face is that workflow. Developers discover models on Hugging Face, deploy them, and optimize them. Whoever controls that discovery layer controls which hardware gets used. 2. The GitHub analogy, inverted. When Microsoft bought GitHub, developers were already using GitHub. Microsoft didn't need to capture them — it needed to prevent Amazon/Google from doing so. NVIDIA faces the opposite problem: developers are already using NVIDIA hardware. But they're discovering and deploying models through a neutral platform. NVIDIA is eliminating that neutrality. 3. The long game: inference, not training. NVIDIA dominates training. But inference is the bigger TAM — and it's more fragmented. If NVIDIA controls the model discovery and deployment layer, it can steer inference workloads to its own stack. That's a 10-year strategy disguised as a 14-billion-dollar acquisition. Who wins, who loses: NVIDIA (NVDA): Acquires the developer distribution layer. The most important strategic move since CUDA. Shifts the valuation case from "chip cycle" to "platform economics." Competitors (AMD, INTC): Lose neutral access to the primary AI model distribution channel. This is a structural headwind that no amount of hardware catch-up can fix. Cloud providers (MSFT, AMZN, GOOGL): Hugging Face was a neutral hub. If NVIDIA controls it, cloud providers risk being disintermediated from AI workload decisions. The open-source community: The platform that was built on openness is now owned by the dominant hardware vendor. Neutrality is the first casualty. The capital question: Can NVIDIA integrate Hugging Face without destroying its community value? If yes, the $14B is cheap. If no, it's a very expensive mistake. The answer will define whether NVIDIA becomes the AWS of AI — or just another hardware company with an expensive acquisition. Note: Acquisition details based on Bloomberg reporting; not confirmed by NVIDIA or Hugging Face. Revenue multiple comparisons based on publicly reported figures.

• 
  Jack Vinijtrongjit (@juminoz) reported 19 minutes ago

  FYI. While having ChatGPT record the footages for the launch, it discovered a few issues that needs to be fixed first. Since I also have a separate hard deadline, I will delay this launch until tomorrow instead. Maybe I will get my GitHub account back by then as well.

• 
  Syn (spirit/acc) (@Synxneuos) reported 19 minutes ago

  GM guys. Don’t assume that because the token price is down, I’ve stopped working on development. If you want to see what’s actually being built, check the GitHub. I’ll keep posting updates here as well, but today was a little hectic for me, so I couldn’t post as much as I wanted to. Development is still going on. More updates soon.

• 
  Yuvraj Singh (@Yuvraj_Singh317) reported 21 minutes ago

  Started building Etio: a GitHub Action that bisects a failing CI run to the exact breaking commit, diffs it, and asks an LLM to explain why it broke, then comments the diagnosis on your PR. No Docker, no server- runs on your own Actions minutes. Open source, WIP.

• 
  John Rood (@johnroodepic) reported 22 minutes ago

  @github this quietly upgrades agent workflows too. a coding agent can attach the screenshot, recording, or repro artifact to the PR instead of leaving a human to prove the fix happened.

• 
  Anthony Loera (@AnthonyLoera_) reported 22 minutes ago

  I completely agree... the other day I got excited over a github project, I copied it, and the first thing I did was tell Kimi swarm to review the code and tell me if it had issues... It found a lot of issues. Then i realized lots of people had downloaded it and were probably using it in production systems for a bit! I get the feeling many people are using stuff like this relying on the developers to 'patch it up' when they find something... Yikes! @github #redteam #exploits

• 
  ѕaℓoηι ηαяαηg (@thesaloninarang) reported 23 minutes ago

  I review resumes for DevOps beginners at meetups, and the same fixable problem shows up every time: bullets that describe the tool instead of what YOU did with it. Let me show you the difference with real rewrites. BEFORE: "Worked with Docker and Kubernetes" AFTER: "Containerized a 3-service Node app and deployed it to a local Kubernetes cluster with health checks and resource limits" BEFORE: "Knowledge of CI/CD" AFTER: "Built a GitHub Actions pipeline that tests, builds and pushes images on every merge to main" BEFORE: "Familiar with Linux" AFTER: "Debugged container startup failures using logs, exec and inspect on Ubuntu servers" See the pattern? Verb, artifact, specifics. A hiring manager can picture the AFTER versions. The BEFORE versions could be copied from any job description, and that is exactly how they read. You do not need production experience to write bullets like this. Personal projects count when you describe them concretely.

• 
  Landon (@LanCowawa) reported 25 minutes ago

  @slingoorio You ***** my last $12 on $Mona The Github mascot? the one you said you were leaving a moon bag and then sold it. **** was slow cooking til you came in and crashed the party. BGGYNGsnouXfi4nYo9JvNbQbaVdnaVby6g9FeZMYpump

• 
  IDAN☀️ (@Idan_core) reported 25 minutes ago

  🧵 1/ More than anything, one thing that gives me the biggest ick is hypocrisy disguised as critical thinking. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being critical of a project you pretend to believe or believe in. Healthy criticism is necessary. You should be able to question decisions, point out weaknesses, demand accountability and still genuinely support the mission. But there is a very obvious difference between being critical and keeping one leg in and one leg out. Some people don't actually have conviction; they have insurance. When things are going well, they say, “I've always believed in this.” When things get difficult, they suddenly appear with, “I told you this would happen.” They position themselves so that whichever way the story goes, they can claim they were right. That's not critical thinking. That's protecting your ego. And sometimes, what people call criticism is simply disappointment wearing a smarter outfit. Look at what happened during the Molten DEX tournament. The general principle in crypto has always been simple: use only what you can afford to lose. Yet some people allowed greed to take over, expecting that $1,000 would somehow become $20,000 overnight. When reality didn't meet that expectation and they ended up with $500 instead, suddenly the project became the problem. What also bothers me is the way people talk about Core's past contributors as though every person who once had a public-facing role was responsible for building the actual blockchain. That's simply not how technology works. There is a difference between a public-facing contributor and the people actually building and maintaining the protocol. Some contributors were regional representatives, community managers, educators, Twitter Space hosts or simply familiar faces within the ecosystem. They played their own roles, and some of those roles were valuable, but they were not necessarily the engineers writing the underlying code. The people doing the deepest technical work are often the least visible. They don't necessarily need to be on every Twitter Space. They don't need to become personalities. They choose to remain completely unknown to the average user while spending their days writing code, reviewing systems, fixing vulnerabilities, testing upgrades and solving problems that most of us will never even see. The Satoshi app era made us realize from its early phase that the face of a core blockchain are not necessarily the hands building it. So when I hear people say, “Those contributors are gone, therefore Core is finished,” I honestly wonder whether they ever understood what they were looking at in the first place. Some public faces came and went. That's normal. People change jobs. People move on. Community roles change. Social structures evolve. And yes, some people may have been more favored than others within those circles. Some of today's loudest critics were even beneficiaries of the same relationships and favoritism they now criticize. That is precisely why we should separate personal history from technological reality. A person leaving a contributor role on X does not mean the protocol stopped being developed. A regional contributor disappearing from the public eye does not mean the engineers disappeared. A familiar face no longer posting about Core does not tell you what is happening inside the codebase. Sometimes, before blaming the ecosystem, you have to honestly examine the person sitting in front of the mirror. Was it really conviction that changed, or was it greed that got disappointed? There is another part of this that I find even more interesting. Some of the loudest voices demanding answers, questioning development and declaring what Core should or shouldn't be doing are not builders. They are not engineers. They are not contributing code. They are not spending their time on GitHub solving problems or improving the infrastructure they claim to care so deeply about. They are users.

• 
  mayrachm (@mayrachm) reported 28 minutes ago

  @egavrilenko11 @bot 2/3 GitHub didn't work either. I even tried creating a Cursor account, and it was the same. It only worked when I used the Gmail login option. I used another personal account and then linked it to my Supergrok account. I'm logged in that way, but when I connected the X plugin...

• 
  Raigeki (@Raigeki_Dev) reported 32 minutes ago

  Day 3 of building the app store screenshot tool I actually want to use. Today I barely touched the canvas. Built everything around it instead. ✨ Modern landing page, built from scratch ✨ Google sign-in fully wired up ✨ Redesigned the sign-in page so the first screen doesn't look like an afterthought ✨ Started on SEO ✨ A few more editor bugs squashed on the way Do you think I should also add "Sign in with GitHub" or is Google enough?

• 
  Yash (@dewyashtwts) reported 32 minutes ago

  recently integrated Resend into @supercodeai review so founders get PR alerts with real risk context I'm amazed what we found out when we put @coderabbitai / @greptile through the same PR: 1) coderabbit / greptile: - stamped it “low risk, mergeable” (4/5) clean - forgot context from the last PR - no tests suggested, no safety checks - zero memory of previous regressions 2) supercode review on the exact same PR - flagged a real vulnerability in the diff - noticed i’d pushed credentials into `.env.example` - pulled in history from past PRs + explaining how this change could affect and break them - downgraded it to "medium risk, fix before merge" state - attached concrete fixes + patches scoped by severity this is the difference between 'LLM summarizer for github' and an actual swe agent that cares about your production

• 
  Suryansh Tiwari (@Suryanshti777) reported 37 minutes ago

  6. The Dependency Incident Check Grok has native real-time search across X. Breakage gets posted there hours before the GitHub issue is triaged. No other coding model has that feed. "You are a build engineer whose first move on a broken pipeline is to work out whether it broke for everyone or only for me. Search X and the web, last 14 days. Check: - Is anyone else reporting this failure with this package and version, and when did the reports start - The exact release that changed behaviour, and the changelog line that admits it - Whether maintainers have acknowledged it and what they recommended - The pin or patch people settled on, with the tradeoff of each - Whether this is my problem instead, and what evidence points that way Give me the verdict in the first line: their bug or mine. Then the evidence, newest first, with links. My failure: [PASTE THE ERROR, THE PACKAGE AND VERSION, AND WHAT CHANGED ON YOUR SIDE RECENTLY]"

• 
  small_j (@a_small_j) reported 39 minutes ago

  @smalldocs_org recently crossed 200 stars on GitHub and 20 forks. SmallDocs is the first open source project I've managed. Handling other people's pull requests is not easy (and I need to improve). They implement features you're not considering and fix bugs you didn't know you had. Extremely useful, but if you're squeezed for time and trying to develop core functionality, it's hard to manage both things well.

• 
  Gordo Polymath (@gordo_polymath) reported 40 minutes ago

  @github Please fix gh stack.

• 
  Shanica North (@KickAssShanica) reported 40 minutes ago

  @ArcyloOfficial Get comfy! For me, my Gmail is a connector. This is OAuth into my inbox. Grok can: • search and read mail (body, headers, attachments) • draft replies • send / reply / forward if you grant write/send • label, trash, organize Base hook is often read-only. Send is an extra permission you click on purpose. If you connect it, the bot is sitting in the same box as bank alerts and 2FA codes. That is the whole risk. You can revoke anytime. Grok Bot can also skip my inbox and get its own address (AgentMail / similar plugins). Then it sends and receives from something@….agentmail.to, not from you. I use that if I want an agent that emails people without reading my personal mail. My GitHub OAuth into the GitHub user I sign in as. With the scopes I approve it can: • read public and private repos that account can see • search code, list branches, summarize PRs • open/update issues • create branches, push files, open/review/merge PRs • delete files if write is on Private repos work only if I granted repo (or equivalent) at connect time. Safer pattern: tell it to branch + PR, not push straight to main. Same revoke page. What it cannot do by default • It does not get your password. • It does not stay logged in if you disconnect the connector. • It does not magically see my GitHub orgs I never authorized. • Connecting email does not connect GitHub, and the other way around. Practical rule for me Do not hook personal Gmail if that inbox has 2FA and money mail unless you want an assistant reading it. GitHub is useful if I chose to still keep repos, ask it to show the diff before any write. If you only wanted “what does this button do,” that is the button: it is not a viewer badge. It is a key you can take back. This is what I’m experiencing with learning to use it. It’s different and I’m starting to like it.

• 
  Lily (@lobstermindset) reported 52 minutes ago

  @nnnnicholas i just setup a github issues board, will probs try out linear if it's not sufficient

• 
  Michael Grunder (@grumi78) reported 56 minutes ago

  @Waffl3x It's slop yes, but WiFi is regularly broken on Linux, even in 2026. It's not uncommon to have to build some random GitHub fork for a driver.

• 
  Mark (@Mark850428) reported 57 minutes ago

  @officially__adi @wjessup @DarioAmodei The context is in the work. I have a set of env files, that go with every project server, account, access credentials, github repo location and status. They all reinforce the ai. Context isn't just what you say.

• 
  recovering buzzkill (@MikeStillAwake) reported 59 minutes ago

  @Karai_Dan @SteamDeckHQ Agenda or not nexus mods is a terrible outdated model for distributing mods. GitHub would be a superior host.

• 
  Ravi Prasad (@ravikp7) reported 59 minutes ago

  Big NO to Github hosted CI runners for personal projects now. I have setup a self-hosted github CI runner on a spare laptop running ubuntu server. Been running it for 10 days and I did some calculations, for my usage if I run it on Github runners, it'd cost me around 200$ vs < INR 100 on electricity (local setup) monthly.