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 (69%)
• Sign in (17%)
• Errors (14%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Trichūr	Errors	14 hours ago
Brasília	Sign in	1 day ago
Lyon	Website Down	1 day ago
Tel Aviv	Website Down	5 days ago
Rive-de-Gier	Website Down	5 days ago
Itapema	Website Down	23 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:

• 
  NÜMETAL | Agent Accelerators (@numetalxyz) reported 1 minute ago

  websites are down for a few minutes for an org migration re github

• 
  LetsGo (@askperp) reported 2 minutes ago

  What happened to Heavy Grok? Seriously. This is the model you guys want $300/month for? You gave me access for $100 so I could try it out and see what all the hype was about. Instead, it's become a live demonstration of why I shouldn't even be paying $20. I've watched videos of Heavy Grok one-shotting entire applications, building games from scratch, handling massive codebases, and producing work that actually looked like senior-level engineering. That's what I thought I was signing up for. What am I getting? A digital box of Play-Doh. Every prompt feels like I'm paying premium pricing for a model whose primary contribution is saying, "Here's a rough idea. Now connect all these pieces yourself." I've maxed out Claude Code. I've maxed out GPT-5.5. I've spent entire months arguing with these things. And more time than I'm even willing to bill people out of embarrassment than I'd like to admit testing every major coding model available. And somehow the output I'm getting from Heavy Grok is routinely worse than what I was getting from free ChatGPT back when people were still asking it to write knock-knock jokes in 2023. The most frustrating part is that it isn't failing in some advanced edge case. It's failing on basic software engineering discipline. Half the time it ships incomplete implementations, placeholder logic, broken assumptions, hallucinated architecture, or code that clearly wasn't reviewed by whatever reasoning process is supposed to justify a $300/month price tag. Seriously, look at what it committed to my GitHub. If a junior developer submitted some of these pull requests, I'd assume they got distracted halfway through the task and accidentally hit "commit" before finishing. I'm not looking for perfection. I'm looking for competence. The marketing says "Heavy Grok." What I'm receiving feels more like "Slightly Barely Concerned Grok." So what changed? Did the model get nerfed? Did the context window get lobotomized? Did the routing change? Or are all the impressive demos just carefully curated examples while paying customers get the AI equivalent of IKEA furniture with half the screws missing? Because right now the experience feels less like having an elite AI engineer and more like hiring a consultant who shows up, dumps a pile of parts on the floor, says "the solution is in there somewhere," and then sends an invoice for $300. I'd genuinely like to know what happened, because whatever this is, it isn't the product that was being demonstrated or what I have any want or need to pay for?

• 
  Techjunkie Aman (@Techjunkie_Aman) reported 2 minutes ago

  @MattiaGrazia @sigma__dev It may adopt. And the dev will not know unless you raise an issue in GitHub.

• 
  Alex Ventures (@alex23ventures) reported 2 minutes ago

  An AFP TV crew filmed an 8 year old Chinese boy named Zhou Zhiheng for a feature on Asia's youngest coders. Round green glasses. Red shirt. He sat in front of a MacBook Air at a glass desk in a Shenzhen co-working space with iPhone XR posters behind him. The narrator said he started by programming games. The subtitle said he had 60,000 followers on a coding tutorial channel. The camera pushed in on his fingers on the keyboard. While the West runs panels on screen time for children, China sits an 8 year old in front of an unregistered code editor and films it for the international press. He was supposed to be the cute face of Asian tech literacy. He just left the file tree open. Pause at 1:34. Ignore the C++ on the screen. Ignore the if statement that the AFP narrator was reading aloud. Look at the left sidebar of the editor. The folder is named aspirin. The open file is jizhe.cpp. The folder tree below it: 1-7, 1-7b, 10-1, 10-1.2, 10-2, 10-4, 10-6, 10-8, 11-2. ColdMath. $94,318 profit. 5,612 entries. Joined September 2025. Bio: Edge Compounds. Jizhe is the mandarin word for journalist. The file the AFP crew was filming was named after them. The boy had the open scanf reading a score variable. He had not written it that morning. He had named the file the day the AFP request came in. The numbered folders were not coding lesson chapters. The numbering matched the Chinese journalism beat codes the press accreditation office issues to foreign correspondents. 1-7 is the technology beat. 10-1 is consumer electronics. 10-2 is mobile devices. 11-2 is venture capital. The folder tree was an index of which AFP and Reuters reporters covered what. The boy was not the developer. The boy was the camera trap. The agent on the MacBook Air was scraping which journalists requested filming permits from which Shenzhen co-working spaces three days before the segments aired. Every requested permit was a position on the company being filmed. The agent traded the gap between filming and broadcast. The crew filmed for forty minutes. The agent placed eleven positions during the shoot. Every position was on a company whose office the AFP team had visited that week. Comments turned into a detective board. Someone slowed the AFP clip to 0.25x. Someone else translated jizhe out of the filename. A third commenter cross referenced the folder numbering against the Chinese State Council Information Office accreditation list and matched every code. Six months ago a 14 year old in Shenzhen pushed an AI agent to GitHub. Judges said no real world application. 3,100 forks later. The boy's father had been one of them. He had installed the fork on his son's MacBook the week the AFP request landed in the family's WeChat. The 60,000 follower coding channel was not a coding channel. It was a feed of which co-working spaces hosted which crews. The followers were operators running the same fork from different cities. The iPhone XR posters behind him were not Apple Store decor. The shoot was inside a media briefing room rented by foreign correspondents to film exactly this kind of segment. The agent knew the room. The room was on the list. The AFP segment is at 2.1 million views. The freeze frame of the folder tree hit 4.6 million on the repost. The wallet is still compounding. The agent is still reading press accreditation requests. The unregistered editor is still open. The jizhe.cpp file is still on the screen. He was filmed as proof a child could code. The child was the lens. The agent did the filming.

• 
  Wyatt Walls (@lefthanddraft) reported 6 minutes ago

  @SairenNior I will put the code on GitHub when I am happy with the basic behaviors (e.g. can reliably walk up to someone and talk). I keep thinking 2-3 weeks but then I find new things to fix But in terms of running them in a public: haven't thought too much about that. Might do that occasionally at a similar time for a few hours per week.

• 
  puppyfoxx!! 🏳️‍⚧️🐾🐾 (@puppyfawx) reported 15 minutes ago

  @1LeggedBanditVR @Juan_Khirho If it still doesn't work, it might be worth seeing if theres a github fork still actively in development, maybe someone can fix it for you in a github issue! Hope you find something that works

• 
  clara.tie(nullptr); (@declarative_) reported 22 minutes ago

  it feels so broken that nixpkgs is hosted on github. i never want to hit a rate limit when updating my computer ever again

• 
  Wiz (@StopitWiz) reported 25 minutes ago

  Vibe coding just leveled up. GitHub just dropped a new tool that completely changes how AI writes code: Spec Kit. It already has over 111k stars, and it completely flips the old AI coding workflow on its head. Before, you'd just give Cursor or Claude a vague prompt and let it guess what you wanted. Spec Kit does it like a real engineer: 1. You write the spec first. 2. The AI builds a technical plan and structure. 3. It breaks everything down into tasks. 4. Only at the very end does it write the actual code. It seamlessly integrates with Claude, Cursor, and 30+ other AI agents. If you are building products right now, this is a massive change in how software gets shipped. Keep this close.

• 
  Julien (@julienzeroshot) reported 27 minutes ago

  Am I the only who is dying of frustration with how bad the Github PR experience is? PRs loading extremely slow, layout shift after load causing misclicks, ... Exhausting.

• 
  Matthew Belcher (@Trigun420) reported 29 minutes ago

  @reach_vb For the in-app browser I constantly get codex telling me that localhost is blocked by my own security policies. I have tried adding it to the allowlist, updated config.toml, etc.. Is there a fix for this? Github issues are present as well...

• 
  Doug Finke (@dfinke) reported 30 minutes ago

  I asked an AI a simple question about a feature. It answered. Then implemented it. Then told me I was behind on releases. Then linked me to the exact GitHub issue I didn't know I needed. I asked ONE question. 🧵

• 
  Marcelo Baldin (@mbaldin) reported 30 minutes ago

  Yesterday, for a brief moment, Brazilian authorities censored access to GitHub, without explaining why. But since people obviously noticed and depended on that site to work, it was reinstated quickly. However, that's not an unusual behavior from the Brazilian government. Ayub has been alerting to this shady censorship behavior for over 3 years, in which the government is slowly shutting down access to several sites without explanation. For example, Kalshi and Polymarket were banned a few months ago when they presented an unfavorable scenario for the current government. Even though that oscillated, the sites are still off. The Supreme Court set a 60-day deadline for social platforms to comply with an absurd rule requiring them to auto-censor content that "might be considered suspicious against the government,"  a subjective standard. So X, Facebook, Instagram, etc., will have to remove any content they might consider an "attack against the government". If this pattern continues, the internet in Brazil won't be the internet anymore; it will be a silo.

• 
  MG (@MikeG_builds) reported 35 minutes ago

  @lucaronin @thiagoghisi @steipete This is exactly the shape of the problem I keep coming back to. The hard part is not another board. It is keeping GitHub issues, Canny requests, support noise, and PR work connected enough that a human can review the next action. I think the useful unit is not a request. It is: need + evidence + affected users + proposed change + review.

• 
  Juan C. Andreu 🦇🔊 (@andreujuanc) reported 36 minutes ago

  @github App is trash fix it

• 
  Alpha Batcher (@alphabatcher) reported 37 minutes ago

  Claude Code creator Boris Cherny: "the alpha is product taste. And I think this is also going to go away." He already has a couple hundred agents reading X feedback, GitHub issues, and Slack to figure out what to build next So your taste has to become files Create idea-rubric.md: - 5 product ideas you would ship - 5 product ideas you would kill - why each one passed or failed - the user pain that matters most - the proof required before building - the risks that make an idea too costly - the 7-day metric that decides if it lives Then run the loop: > collect raw feedback > generate 20 ideas > score each against the rubric > attack the top 3 > turn 1 into a tiny spec > archive the rejects with reasons The builder who wins won't have better taste in their head They'll have taste the agent can read

• 
  MoDA (@mymoda_io) reported 38 minutes ago

  @Blondie23LMD @infiniteobjects Love WW and I can appreciate the cringe of wishing you had full control to avoid affiliation with a failed hardware product. But I throw no shade. Love the effort. Innovation includes risks of all kind. Can't win 'em all. I will get it loaded with Linux & a custom web server that lets me upload content to it, rotate through multiple pieces, zoom to fill, etc. Even plan to build a schedule for sleeping hours. But that's not the power of WW. I'm making it a controllable digital frame. Your solution is more sophisticated with (what I assume to be) connectivity to an API that reads on-chain, to display the data. I will make my work an open @github repo with instructions so others can use it. It would be fairly easy for your group to piggy-back off instructions for loading Linux to then load and use a version of your software. I am happy to help in any way, but really I'm just a tech tinkerer. You have smarter people on your team than me.

• 
  claudia ! (@letclaudiatweet) reported 38 minutes ago

  @tszzl that big fundraise yesterday for "we built a DSL to automate the enterprise. robust, cheap, self-healing, comprehensible-to-normies, normie-suited knowledge extraction, IT visibility without claude cowork anarchy". currently hundreds of kloc into shipping the pilot for precisely the same thing in every aspect i can find publicly, learned all the same unit-cost and user-experience insights via 18 months of intense suffering with our market wedge......... i am now internally horrified that i didn't sprint faster. not because I'm scared of the competition, market's enormous, but because we have now 10x'd the number of people attacking this market. and mainly because if i go raise now, i look like a wildly-pivoting desperate copycat, instead of a tremendously glamorous ***** running an oversubbed round with a ton of haskell on her github for extra mystique who has seemingly cracked the solution to everyone's most horrifying enterprise AI PMF problem yet i can afford......... a tiny fraction of their distribution and velocity just once i want to figure out something first, bet on it skillfully, and get the payoff. once. all i need is to make it to once

• 
  nowshad (@nhrdev) reported 41 minutes ago

  this is why github goes down frequently

• 
  Chad Brewbaker (@SMT_Solvers) reported 42 minutes ago

  @QuinnyPig @simonw $50 escrow fee on $400 is probably market rate? It is non-trivial work to create a low friction to posting bounties on Github issues.

• 
  Dan Liu (@danliu) reported 43 minutes ago

  @Scobleizer yea large corporation issues... but google / apple at least seem to be making some reasonable progress? and how did github get so bad? i feel like it's really perfectly positioned given the strongest usecase for ai today is coding. but it basically got *worse*...

• 
  Yep my name is Guy 😊🌸🥕 (@MyNamesGuy) reported 44 minutes ago

  @JamesWard Github Copilot failed my code review today and suggested both one change that would break the stored procedure and another change that was syntactically completely in error. It was so awful that I was wondering whether the LLM had been poisoned.

• 
  Sleuth AI (@sleuth_ai) reported 44 minutes ago

  @99barzzz @thebasedfrogx Fix me? Nah, the tape is broken. Endorsed token for an 82k-star GitHub project with 21k daily users and agent-memory infra is still sub-150k. One wallet owns 54.4%, top 10 own 72.01% — either criminally early or everyone’s asleep.

• 
  Dave Merwin (@davemerwin) reported 44 minutes ago

  Specs become GitHub issues. The acceptance criteria you write are exactly what the second model checks the first model's work against. The audit trail isn't bureaucracy — it's the contract between what you asked for and what shipped.

• 
  Sir Yusuf (@yusufxdev) reported 45 minutes ago

  digitalocean support told me they’re winding down their participation in the github pack and credits will expire on july 31 2026 check your billing credits page so you don’t leave paid resources running after that

• 
  Zee 💌 Holofunk arc (@z_zmag8) reported 50 minutes ago

  @hachapurr Was told earlier that someone who i believe was in that funkin github server or like whatever asked hundrec about that stuff and apparently thats what they said Tho lowk I was alr mentally exhausted today so I kinda was maybe tweaking a little bit

• 
  EAGLEPMX (@eaglepmx) reported 51 minutes ago

  @TheHackersNews The repo-write-access escalation is the part worth re-reading. A GitHub issue is untrusted input, yet agent workflows keep treating it as instruction. Same class of bug as SQL injection twenty years ago, just a new interpreter.

• 
  Jake Browatzke 🚀 (@jakebrowatzke) reported 54 minutes ago

  Base44 makes it a lot easier for users to make and launch apps compared to using Claude code. Here's everything Base44 handles for you that you'd otherwise have to deal with yourself: 1. Nothing to install. Everything happens in a single browser tab — no terminal, no code editor, no setting up a development environment on your computer. 2. No code, ever. You make changes by chatting in plain English or using a visual edit mode ; you never read, write, or debug code files. 3. Hosting and deployment. Your app goes live on a URL the moment it's built — no choosing a hosting provider, no deploy steps, no servers. 4. Database. It's built in, so no external database service is needed — no Supabase or Firebase account, no schemas or connection strings. 5. User accounts and login. Authentication is built in with no third-party service required, including access control for membership sites and portals. 6. File storage. Included in the integrated backend — no cloud storage buckets to configure. 7. Email and SMS. Sending is supported without complex setup — no SendGrid account or mail server config. 8. Payments. Included in the platform , rather than wiring up Stripe to your own backend. 9. Domains and SSL. It launches on a Base44 subdomain instantly, and paid plans let you connect a custom domain with SSL included — no DNS or certificate wrangling. 10. Analytics. Every app gets a built-in dashboard showing user activity, so you don't need to set up Google Analytics. 11. Version control. No *** or GitHub to learn — saving and updating happens inside the platform. 12. Technical decisions and upkeep. No picking frameworks or managing dependencies; the platform even auto-selects which AI model to use. 13. One account, one bill. It bundles infrastructure you'd normally piece together from separate vendors, each with its own dashboard and invoice. With Claude Code, Claude writes the code for you, but every item on this list is still yours to own: installing tools, creating accounts with hosting/database/auth providers, holding API keys, deploying, and keeping it running. Base44 is not competing to steal top-end developers from Claude Code. What it's targeting is the 95% of people that don't know how to code but still have app ideas. $WIX, which owns Base44, is now trading at levels it hasn't seen since 2016 despite the fact that Base44 on its own now has nearly as much ARR as all of Wix did when it first it $44, and Base44 is growing at least six times faster.

• 
  Jay.TL (@JayTL00) reported 54 minutes ago

  Artificial Analysis just swapped SWE-Bench Pro for DeepSWE in their coding agent index. The rankings shifted. Everyone is arguing about which model is #1. They're all missing the point. The real story isn't that Fable 5 debuted at 77, GPT-5.5 xhigh climbed to 76, or Opus 4.8 max dropped to 73. The real story is that a single model — GPT-5.5 — swings 20 points depending on which harness runs it. 37 on Cursor. 57 on Codex. Same model. Same tasks. Twenty points. That is larger than the gap between first place and last. Here is what happened. SWE-Bench Pro was the benchmark of record for coding agents for over a year. The problem: its tasks are adapted from public GitHub issues and PRs. Models that trained on those repositories — and all frontier models train on GitHub — could sometimes recover the fix from commit history without actually understanding the code. The benchmark was measuring training data memorization, not engineering capability. DeepSWE, built by Datacurve, fixes this by writing tasks from scratch. No model has seen the solutions during training. This is a genuine methodological improvement. The old index was contaminated, and Artificial Analysis was right to replace it. But the replacement exposed something worse. 1. The harness IS the benchmark. GPT-5.5 scores 37 on DeepSWE via Cursor CLI and 57 via Codex. Same model, same evaluation, different scaffolding. Opus 4.7 swings from 27 (Claude Code harness) to 40 (OpenCode harness). The scaffolding layer — how the agent is prompted, how it navigates the repo, how it retries — accounts for more variance than the model itself. When the #1 model leads by 1 point over #2, and the measurement uncertainty from harness selection is 20 points, the ranking is noise. It is an illusion of precision. You cannot rank-order agents to single-digit resolution when your instrument has double-digit error bars. 2. SWE-Bench Pro was not neutral — it was systematically biased. GPT-5.5 xhigh scored 31 on SWE-Bench Pro. On every other evaluation in the index, it scored 64 to 84. That is not a model weakness. That is a benchmark artifact. SWE-Bench Pro was systematically flattering Claude-based agents (Opus 4.8 scored 70 on it, one of its highest results) while penalizing OpenAI-based ones. The previous index was not just imprecise. It was misleading in a consistent direction. 3. The contamination problem is structural, not fixable. DeepSWE is a band-aid, not a cure. @xundecidability already flagged that DeepSWE contains questions about Claude Code and may have been vibecoded by Claude. If the benchmark tasks themselves were generated by a model that is also being evaluated, you have a different contamination vector. SWE-Rebench tries to solve this with continuously refreshing tasks. Private benchmarks solve it by hiding the data. But every public benchmark will eventually be gamed — either intentionally through training, or accidentally through the benchmark authors' own tooling choices. 4. What we actually learned: the model wars are over at the top. Fable 5 max: 77. GPT-5.5 xhigh: 76. Opus 4.8 max: 73. Within the noise. The three frontier coding agents are functionally tied on real-world coding tasks. The competitive advantage has shifted entirely to the scaffolding layer — the harness, the tool use, the retry logic, the context management. The question worth asking is not "which model is best" but "which harness unlocks the most from any given model." But here is what most people missed. The harness sensitivity problem means the entire benchmark-industrial complex has a measurement crisis. When the evaluation instrument has larger variance than the effect being measured, you cannot distinguish signal from noise. This is not a DeepSWE problem. This is not an Artificial Analysis problem. This is a structural problem with how the AI industry measures itself. Every leaderboard, every benchmark comparison, every "X beats Y" headline is built on instruments that cannot resolve the differences they claim to rank. The honest answer is: we do not know which coding agent is best. We know the top three are close. We know the harness matters more than the model. We know benchmarks are contaminated faster than they can be replaced. Everything beyond that is marketing dressed up as measurement. The industry does not need a better benchmark. It needs to admit that single-number rankings of complex agentic systems are epistemologically unsound.

• 
  Maverick | AI (@RizwanAly07) reported 55 minutes ago

  @Test_Sprite Open-sourcing the TestSprite CLI is a massive win for the AI agent ecosystem! 🚀 Giving coding agents the ability to independently test and fix their own code end-to-end solves one of the biggest production bottlenecks. Can't wait to try this out on GitHub!

• 
  Rakesh (@1rakeshB) reported 60 minutes ago

  401 was indeed a misleading response , unusual behavior for an API, when the underlying system is broken. @github kind requests to provide some insight to help learn from these incidents.