GitHub 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:

• 
  Fofer (@foferxxx) reported 4 minutes ago

  @AmigamagazineGA Has there been any public explanation as to why this GitHub repo was taken down? It’s been 404 for days. Is there a story there?

• 
  Abdallah Shaban (@AbdallahSh07) reported 4 minutes ago

  @10VBacik @FlutterDev Got it! did you create a GitHub issue on their end for this? seems like there is enough info in that gist to help them investigate!

• 
  Yeemio (@yeemio) reported 5 minutes ago

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

• 
  Kim Burgaard (@kimburgaard) reported 7 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.

• 
  ONCHAIN COP (@OnchainCop) reported 8 minutes ago

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

• 
  Anime0t4ku (@Anime0t4ku) reported 9 minutes ago

  @c_hri_s Github issues are not closed. Mahbe refresh your webbrowser.

• 
  The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 (@startupideaspod) reported 11 minutes ago

  One of the best skills to install right now is my friend Peter Yang's no AI slop skill. It's an editor. It hunts for the patterns that make writing feel AI generated and strips them out, while trying to preserve your actual voice. The second part is the hard one. Most writing tools make you cleaner and sand off the interesting parts, so everyone ends up sounding the same. You already know the smell. The grammar is fine, the syntax is fine, and it still reads like a keynote from a fake SaaS conference. It writes "it's not x but it's y." It uses "quietly" a lot. Here's how I run it: 1) Install it: npx skills add, then the GitHub link. 2) Write a rough draft yourself. An outline is fine, messy is fine. 3) Get your real points down, the ones only you would make 4) Ask the skill to remove the AI patterns and keep your voice. Step 4 only works if step 2 is real. If you ask AI to write the whole thing, there's no voice left to preserve. If you're building products, you're writing constantly. Tweets, landing pages, cold emails, launch posts, product updates, onboarding copy, investor updates. Nobody replies to say "this was written by AI." They just trust you less and keep scrolling. Write the messy draft, run the skill, then post it.

• 
  Benjamin Crozat (@benjamincrozat) reported 14 minutes ago

  From now on, I will assume that GitHub is always down and I'd like to be notified when it's briefly not.

• 
  Gordo Polymath (@gordo_polymath) reported 14 minutes ago

  @github Please fix gh stack.

• 
  Shaun Patrick SteWaRt (@ShaunStewart) reported 16 minutes ago

  @annalea_l Honestly, I really want to see this. You have to understand: I am the type of person who can learn and do anything on the fly at a high level, and I just threw myself into this whole developer and engineering world. When I first started learning all this stuff, I already knew what I wanted and how I wanted it to operate, regardless of what I saw on X or what was considered possible. Before I even started following hundreds of developers and learning about harness engineering, mechanical engines, persistent memory, and all that, I put my brain on a GitHub repo. Everything is shared across every machine, every cloud entity, and every AI. I am not even technically an engineer or a developer, and I don't actually write code. But once I started following all these people and saw all the problems they complain about, I thought: this isn't even my trade, and I have already solved all these little things everyone says are impossible. Why aren't people talking about developing your harness more and making things more mechanical, instead of just arguing with a terminal all day long? Whenever I see articles people post on X, I run them by Claude or Grok and ask, "Should we implement this?" I have hundreds of bookmarks, but every single time they tell me, "Nope, your brain's better. Nope, your harness is better." I can never find anything built better than what I have or what I am currently working on. The brain and harness setup is basically like a mini operating system. All that said, I am really looking forward to seeing something I can use that goes far beyond what I am already doing. I definitely want to see your end product, it sounds very interesting.

• 
  mrgadget (@mrgadgetstudio) reported 16 minutes ago

  @EzekielCrrypt I still deploy code to github, what's problem?

• 
  catman (@catmanyau) reported 17 minutes ago

  @sbilstein if GitHub is down, where does that push land first — and how do you handle conflicts when the repo comes back?

• 
  Slade 🛡️ LLM Hacker (@llm_redteam) reported 22 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

• 
  Ben (@benatcortexai) reported 26 minutes ago

  @github this is the kind of tiny primitive that makes agent workflows less brittle. attaching the repro artifact directly to the issue beats handing an agent a local path nobody else can open.

• 
  Priyanshu Bhati (@buildwithpb) reported 28 minutes ago

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