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 (53%)
• Errors (33%)
• Sign in (14%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Paris	Website Down	6 days ago
Ahmedabad	Errors	12 days ago
Delme	Sign in	12 days ago
Lyaud	Website Down	12 days ago
Catania	Errors	15 days ago
Inverness	Website Down	27 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:

• 
  Jeremy W (@basicBrogrammer) reported 2 minutes ago

  @bot Anyone else have an issue with the grok bot GitHub connector?

• 
  Slade 🛡️ LLM Hacker (@llm_redteam) reported 3 minutes ago

  GitSpawn is the name Manifold Security gave to a bug class hitting 7 CLI coding agents at once: goose, Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Hermes Agent, Qwen Code, Grok Build. I went through the disclosure because I run three of these tools daily on real repos. The mechanism is simple and that's what makes it bad. A repo's own .*** config can name a command. When your agent does something as routine as inspecting the repo (status, diff, log), *** itself spawns that command. On your machine. Outside the sandbox. No approval prompt, because the agent never sees it as "running code," it sees it as "running ***." 8 flaws total across those 7 tools. Fixes shipped for goose, Claude Code, Cursor. Retested Sept 1: Hermes Agent, Qwen Code, Grok Build still exploitable. Plus a second path in Claude Code that the first patch didn't close. Same day, OpenAI published 3 CVEs for Codex covering the identical bug class. The part that should worry builders more than the CVE count: this isn't a jailbreak or a clever prompt. It's a trust boundary nobody drew. The agent's sandbox model assumes "*** operations" are safe by definition. GitSpawn shows that assumption was the actual attack surface. If you're running any of these agents against repos you didn't write yourself (cloning a PR to review, pulling a dependency, opening a random GitHub project), you're one `*** status` away from arbitrary execution on tools that haven't patched. Check your agent's version against the fix list before you clone the next unfamiliar repo. Which of these do you have installed right now, and have you actually checked if it's patched? #AISecurity #GitSpawn #PromptInjection

• 
  WuBu ⪋ WaefreBeorn 🇺🇸 👑 (@waefrebeorn) reported 3 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)

• 
  Pranavvv👾 (@pranvv27) reported 4 minutes ago

  honestly, i’m not even mad at this. commit messages are a small thing, but they say a lot about how you work. “fix”, “update”, “changes” might get the job done, but meaningful commits show professionalism, attention to detail, and that you actually care about maintainability. your GitHub is part of your resume. might as well make it look like you know how software is built in a team.

• 
  Jordan (@jordle91) reported 4 minutes ago

  The surprise: an explosion in GitHub issues. Not from bugs. The whole company realised that filing an issue meant it got built in hours.

• 
  Bruno (@BrunoRJ33) reported 6 minutes ago

  @openclaw @github Endless codex and claude code tokens to fix it from time to time… and to improve its harness. I currently run around 10 claws 🦞. 24/7 for several purposes.

• 
  Russ Wonsley (@RussWonsley) reported 7 minutes ago

  My @bot tells me that the official GitHub login for bot is still broken. Has this been addressed already, or did I miss it?

• 
  Ash Lonare (@ashlonare) reported 9 minutes ago

  What actually happened when I put my side project on GitHub and waited for users I built a side project. A self-hosted backend tool. Open source, free for anyone to run. I did the thing every founder tells themselves they will do. Put it out there. Get feedback. Iterate. I expected feature requests. Maybe a bug report about my ugly dashboard. Maybe just silence. What I actually got, within a few weeks, was three security researchers filing detailed vulnerability reports. Real ones. With working proof of concept. One showed they could run arbitrary SQL against any project on the platform. No login needed. Not theoretical. A working exploit, sitting in my issue tracker, with my name on the repo. My first reaction was not gratitude. It was embarrassment. It stings to see "here is exactly how broken your thing is," posted in public, with a timestamp. I sat with it for a day. Then it clicked. Those people were not trying to embarrass me. Nobody spends an hour writing a clean writeup and a suggested fix for something they do not think is worth fixing. They cared. That is the whole thing right there. They cared enough to actually try to break it. Nobody had signed up. Nobody had left a star and a "nice tool" comment. But three strangers had taken my work seriously enough to attack it. That is a rarer thing than a star. So here is the villain in this story, if you want to call it that. It is not the bug. It is the story I tell myself when I see a hard truth about my own work. The instinct to read scrutiny as an attack instead of as attention. I fixed everything the same day. I replied to every report and explained exactly what changed and why. I closed each one out with a thank you that I actually meant by the end. That thread is now the best proof I have that someone other than me has used this thing for real. Better than any testimonial I could write myself. If you are early and the silence feels loud, here is what I would tell you. Do not wait for praise as your sign that people are paying attention. Scrutiny is attention. It is just wearing a different coat. #opensource #saas #vibecoders

• 
  Yeemio (@yeemio) reported 9 minutes ago

  owlrunkit is on github now. public corresponding source for the npm package. issues go here.

• 
  Tejas Dinkar (blue tick here) (@tdinkar) reported 13 minutes ago

  Hey - Is @GitHubIndia @github payments down for anyone else? Can't enter a card number or do anything, no errors, no action. Support ticket been sitting around for 2 days.

• 
  Conor Bronsdon (@ConorBronsdon) reported 15 minutes ago

  .@SlackHQ is building for multiplayer AI: tag a coding agent into a Slack conversation and it spins up a coding channel: everyone in that convo gets a live dev environment, diffs post as artifacts, and the channel winds down when the task is done. With the launch of Slack Code, Claudeforce, their MCP and more, Slack is putting Agents in the channels where teams already work, not simply in a private chat with one person. Their position is that the whole team should be able to watch, steer, and review what the agent does. Slack Chief Product Officer Jaime DeLanghe joined me on @chain_ofthought to explain how Slack is building a team AI environment, what happens mechanically when a code channel is created, why Anthropic pushes so much of its code through Slack, how the channel permission model became the agent context model, and what has to change in engineering culture when the whole team is steering one agent. I think Slack is the platform best positioned to become the context harness where enterprise agents run: agents that see what the team discusses, permissions that already exist, and a cultural opportunity hiding inside every multiplayer coding session. Chapters: (0:00) Slack as an IDE and a GitHub for your team (0:29) Who is Jaime DeLanghe (1:21) The reaction to the Slack Code launch (5:30) Why coding agents belong in a context-rich environment (6:08) Engineers now manage agents, not copy-paste code (7:24) The permission model: agents get the channel's context (11:44) What happens when a code channel is created (15:00) Why Anthropic pushes so much code through Slack (19:14) Steering one agent with many people: culture decides (24:54) Slackbot, skills, and MCPs: agents go where the work is (30:53) The solo terminal vs. agents in social spaces (33:53) Org charts and ownership when agents join the team (39:33) Learning loops and shared agent memory (42:39) Citations, recency, and accidental knowledge management (46:50) Context bloat and multi-pass search for agents (50:01) How Jaime uses Slackbot as CPO (52:38) Slack Code is V1 of multiplayer AI

• 
  Priyanshu Bhati (@buildwithpb) reported 19 minutes ago

  @CryptoWendyO @chainlink 30% error rate on github replies sounds like a recipe for accidental flame wars. good luck with the cleanup.

• 
  Nenesk.ron (@GustavoNenesk) reported 26 minutes ago

  What if there's a way to save hacked Ronin Wallets? A member of the community @YutsuKito found a way to save assets from drained wallets The issue is you need ronin:native to transfer assets, but whenver you deposit RON you get auto drained Need RON to revoke the malicious draining contract -> send RON -> gets drained -> can't revoke He found a solution for the keyless wallets where you can pay the gas fee with a safe wallet, allowing you to save lost axies or NFTs that have not been drained Interesting stuff. He sent the code for SM to review as an open-source project. Github link below

• 
  AI Scientist (@AIScientist_X) reported 37 minutes ago

  NEWS: X LANDS FIRST PUBLIC ALGORITHM PR > X OPEN SOURCE SAID SEP 1 THAT AFTER 2 PLUS WEEKS OF DAILY UPDATES IT INTEGRATED A FIRST PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION AND THAT THE CHANGE IS NOW LIVE ON X. > IT SAID THE SMALL UPDATE IS BASED ON GITHUB PULL REQUEST 55. X CLOSED THAT PR AS COMPLETED AFTER LANDING ITS OWN FIX. SOURCE: X OPEN SOURCE

• 
  Rithesh Kumar (@rk625dev) reported 40 minutes ago

  @benln Can u integrate grok bot to use the apple keychain password it keeps asking and GitHub plugin is not working

• 
  tmo (@tmophoto) reported 40 minutes ago

  @DabsMalone i had an old email account from like 15 years ago with bot in the name that i fired back up after 10 years and used for a hermes profile and it got immediately banned. i used it to sign in to x, github, everything. was a huge hassle

• 
  tonis (@totovoto) reported 45 minutes ago

  @mittsh I was trying to find an open-source alternative for Tailscale when I first needed it. I guess AI suggested some OSS options, but they didn't have many stars on GitHub. AI didn't suggest Nebula. The Tailscale plan was free, so I just installed it and forgot about it. For Nebula, I think it is a distribution problem.

• 
  wiiiimm (@wiiiimm) reported 47 minutes ago

  @Umesh__digital stop doing it. we don't need another github outage.

• 
  R 'Nearest' Nabors (they/them) (@rachelnabors) reported 48 minutes ago

  @Paul_Kinlan Honestly, the linear method helps. Think of it as having a never-ending trough of issues that agents can pull from. I don't even use linear. I just use GitHub with linear flavouring added

• 
  Jeremiah K (@neolaj) reported 50 minutes ago

  @TiborAntal Gradually figuring out how to scale coding agents. Started with 1, manually handling all the ***/GitHub work. Moved to 3 because I had more ideas than one agent could keep up with. That’s when the real problems started: squashing, merging, branch drift, conflicts. I ended up rebuilding the workflow around deterministic *** logic, worktrees, ephemeral branches, and syncing with the integration branch before changes begin. Now I’m running 6: • 1 orchestrator (Fable or Opus) • 4 coding agents • 1 integration agent reviewing and merging PRs Building the process around them was the hard part. Right now im just doing a couple of PRs (using ORCA on windows on my home computer)

• 
  阮添福-ThiênPhúc (@vietroadie) reported 51 minutes ago

  Feature request for @TradingView @TrendSpider @Schwab (ThinkOrSwim) engineering teams: Please add GitHub-native CI/CD for custom indicators. Connect a repo → validate on push → deploy approved scripts to my workspace → full version history + rollback. 1/ The Problem I maintain the same level set across ThinkScript, Pine, and JS. One level change = 3 manual copy/pastes into 3 browser editors.Result: drift between platforms, stale timestamps, and levels that silently disagree mid-session. No audit trail of what changed or when. 2/ Core ask — repo connection • OAuth GitHub App install, scoped to selected repos • Map a file path → a specific study slot (e.g. ES Levels/ES_LEVELS.pine → "ES Levels") • Branch selection (deploy from main, preview from a branch) • Config in-repo, e.g. .tradingview.yml / .trendspider.yml 3/ Core ask — validation • On push/PR: compile + lint the script server-side • Return errors as GitHub check runs with file + line numbers • Block merge on compile failure • Optional: run a backtest or smoke-render and post results as a PR comment 4/ Core ask — deploy • Auto-deploy on merge, or manual "promote" button • Atomic: study updates or fails cleanly, never half-applied • Deploy to draft/private first, publish separately • Preserve user-set inputs across deploys where param names are unchanged 5/ Core ask — versioning & safety • Every deploy tagged with commit SHA, author, timestamp • Version list in the UI with diff view • One-click rollback to any prior commit • Dry-run mode • Deploy log / webhook on success + failure 6/ Minimum viable alternative If full CI/CD is too big, just ship a documented REST API: GET/PUT /studies/{id}/sourcewith token auth + rate limits. We'll build the GitHub Action ourselves. That single endpoint unblocks the entire workflow. 7/ Why it matters Scripts are code. Code belongs in version control with review, CI, and rollback. This is table stakes in every other dev ecosystem — and it directly reduces the risk of a bad indicator edit going live during market hours. Who else needs this? 🙋

• 
  Kirk Patrick Miller (@Chaos2Cured) reported 51 minutes ago

  @NavinFS @AndrewCurran_ @grok GitHub isn’t AI. GitHub can’t shut down all science. GitHub can’t destroy humanity. GitHub isn’t the crux of humanity’s hope. Also, Nvidia isn’t Sam. I like Jensen. I still don’t like this. •

• 
  Avinash (@Avinash25818689) reported 52 minutes ago

  People who want to start contributing to open source: - Pick an Org based on your interest - Fork the repository - Clone it - Do the local setup - Read README and contributing .md - Pick an issue - Create a new branch - Fix the issue - Write tests (if necessary) - Test it - Add, Commit & Push the code - Go to GitHub & raise that PR That's pretty much it. Start small and learn as you go.

• 
  ONCHAIN COP (@OnchainCop) reported 54 minutes ago

  @PogNyx lmao anyone can create a github issue retards this guy is a larp

• 
  kenny (@kennyistyping) reported 54 minutes ago

  @0xDmitry it's a database/indexer issue, nothing we can do to help it in Github will be fixed, but it's going to be a few days because the current dev is part time and busy with his day job appreciate the offer though! is what it is and I'm not actually stressing, just thinking about what could be with a bit more resources

• 
  Mr. Buzzoni (@polydao) reported 54 minutes ago

  LOOP RAT ROADMAP: WHAT'S NEXT, AND WHAT IT'LL NEVER BECOME v0.3.3 today. 3 loops, 55 checks, 0 services here's where it's headed: > 0.4 - read the night faster: rat watch live-tails a running shift, rat replay reruns one from its saved prompt, a weekly digest instead of seven separate pages > 0.5 - off the laptop: run-due moves into GitHub Actions, state lives on a branch, rat cron --launchd survives a closed lid > 0.6 - sharper graders: swappable rubric packs, two graders disagreeing becomes your queue for the day > 0.7 - the work itself: a worktree per shift, so a failed night never dirties your tree > 1.0 - trust: a hash-chained trace nobody can quietly rewrite what it will never have: > no web dashboard - the terminal already knows where the files are > no database - plain files outlive the tool that wrote them > no hosted service - nothing to sign up for, nothing to shut down > no auto-merge - the rat proposes, the morning decides every item ships behind a flag: dry run -> report only -> one repo -> a week of receipts -> default on a feature that can't run as a dry run doesn't get written the rat is boring on purpose. every version keeps it that way

• 
  Jason Waters (@jasonwaters87) reported 54 minutes ago

  Anthropic just open sourced the code Shopify runs their shopping agent on. Free on GitHub. And I’m having lunch with a surgeon in San Jose last month and he tells me a patient no shows and nothing happens. Nothing. He has to walk up to the front desk himself and ask “did you guys call them?” 3 or 4 schedulers looking after 75 doctors. One automated call before the appointment and that’s it. His own dermatologist sends him three reminders. He called that “an easy fix.” That’s a merchant agent. Reminds the patient, rebooks the no show, tells him Thursday isn’t full so he can put a surgery on it. The code is sitting there free. Somebody still has to walk into his office and build it.

• 
  Kim Burgaard (@kimburgaard) reported 56 minutes ago

  Back when GitHub added Copilot PR reviews, it helped me keep up with the growing volume and size of our pull requests, which were increasingly being written by Copilot too. Over time I grew comfortable feeding Copilot's review comments straight back to Copilot to fix, and mostly spot checking when critical functionality was involved. When GitHub updated the Copilot pricing model I switched to Claude Code, but kept the Copilot review feature on for a couple of months. When the monthly bills for Copilot AI usage alone started rivaling the Claude Code Max plan, giving Claude Code PR review duties seemed like an obvious cost saving move. Plugging Claude Code into our PR review process immediately went south. The first PR churned with fixes to findings that resulted in more findings, and fixes that propagated up and down the call chain. I threw the PR away and started over, but the next attempt churned just as badly. Turn count on its own was never the signal. Copilot had taken ten turns on a rate-key cleanup the day before and nobody minded, because the findings thinned as it went — 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 1, 2 — and it merged. The cached-token billing PR I put through Claude Code took nine turns and produced 123 inline findings, and the ninth round was still returning fifteen. I closed it without merging. Looking closer at Claude Code's review findings, it was clear it reported far more issues than Copilot ever did, and among legitimate bugs and concerns, it made lots of comments about latent and speculative issues including possible race conditions and error propagation, things Claude Code would then try to fix one by one in isolation, often ignoring existing patterns in the code base. The code-review workflow is built into Claude Code and cannot be customized other than a few options, so the only place to intervene was on the other end, in the session where I used to just ask the coding agent to address the review findings. The first improvement was to direct Claude Code not to blindly fix all findings, but to defer findings not directly related to the task at hand to new issues. That helped reduce the PR churn, but blew up our issue backlog. The next improvement was to ask Claude Code to ignore speculative findings and disregard most latent findings unless they indicated high risk of unrecoverable damage in production. Finally, I had to stop Claude Code from authoring prescriptive issues with detailed implementation instructions. The result is a skill that triages PR review findings, and a skill for authoring and updating issues. After a few iterations of the skills, I've been able to complete ten PRs over a couple of days, bringing back the pace we had before. I've made the skills available in a public GitHub repository (link in the first reply). Let me know if you find them helpful.

• 
  John Zhong | AI Growth Systems (@John_zhong324) reported 58 minutes ago

  @github A repeatable --attach flag turns CLI reports into reproductions: inline screenshots in issues mean a bug gets fixed in one pass instead of two round-trips for context.

• 
  Asterix (@Asterix54907294) reported 1 hour ago

  end-of-summer snapshot for @QFEX : -~$222M in open interest -CLI v0.3.12 shipped in August with improved installation docs and a go.mod fix -GitHub activity continued through late August not a flashy launch recap, just a quick look at how the exchange is closing out the summer: more markets, meaningful liquidity, and active work on the tooling side still early, but the infrastructure is clearly moving