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
Créteil	Website Down	2 days ago
Trichūr	Errors	5 days ago
Brasília	Sign in	6 days ago
Lyon	Website Down	6 days ago
Tel Aviv	Website Down	10 days ago
Rive-de-Gier	Website Down	10 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:

• 
  CHASMS.COM (@ChasmsCom) reported 5 minutes ago

  Microsoft is routing GitHub through AWS. AI agents pushed demand past what Azure could handle — 275M commits/week, nine May outages, enterprise SLAs broken. The world's biggest dev platform had to call its cloud rival for help. follow @chasmscom #AI #Cloud #Dev

• 
  DeFi Scholar 🎓🎓 (@ModestusOkoye) reported 8 minutes ago

  I don't have a problem with @arxoninfra or its founder, Okunnuwa Ademibo Owoseini (@GabeXmeta). However, there are several things that look concerning and are worth noting before engaging in the ambassador program: 1. Severe Lack of Transparency & Technical Substance (Biggest Concern) • No whitepaper, technical documentation, GitHub repository, or detailed technical specifications. • No blockchain explorer, testnet/mainnet information, or verifiable proof of a live network. • No publicly available security audits, which are standard for serious L1 projects. • The website is extremely minimal, consisting largely of marketing claims and an ambassador signup page. • No visible team page, roadmap, or detailed project documentation. For a project positioning itself as a sovereign Layer 1, this level of opacity is highly unusual. Legitimate blockchain projects typically publish extensive technical resources long before scaling community programs. 2. Pre-TGE Farming & Points System Risks • The current model revolves around mining points rather than earning actual tokens. • Community members have already begun questioning why users are farming points instead of receiving the asset itself. • The points currently have no intrinsic value and rely entirely on future promises around TGE. • This structure can create a situation where users spend time and attention farming an asset that may ultimately fail to deliver meaningful value. 3. Hype appears to exceed verifiable delivery • Marketing activity on X is extensive, with ambassadors, miners, and strong privacy-focused narratives. • Claims around remittances, government-grade voting systems, and large-scale privacy infrastructure are ambitious. • However, there is little publicly available evidence, technical documentation, or partnerships supporting these claims. • Despite language suggesting an active network, most visible activity appears centered around a points-based mobile app rather than a publicly verifiable blockchain. As always, do your own research.

• 
  Kabo Kable Molefe (@kabokablemolefe) reported 17 minutes ago

  @TheGoddamnKing Review? I just YOLO the code. But honestly if all tests pass locally and staging is okay plus no errors via github, I merge.

• 
  Will (@Willexeyy) reported 19 minutes ago

  @0xkozue i check if the problem resonates with real users and solves pain points. shipping prototypes and gathering feedback help me adjust quickly. on github i release minimal features to test interest. how do you decide if you're on the right track?

• 
  outloop (@0utloop) reported 19 minutes ago

  I had a GitHub repo with my ex. I still create issues, but there's no response anymore.

• 
  Luis Bezzenberger (@bezzenberger) reported 20 minutes ago

  has anyone gotten Kimi K2.6 on dual mac studio 512gb via @exolabs to work with an agentic harness? if so, would love to chat. it works for chat, but stops after just 1 response when put into an agentic harness like opencode, vscode. many people have similar issues on github

• 
  AcceptÐoge (@DogeAccept) reported 20 minutes ago

  @BuildrJ @DogeOS to start: 2025/09/15, you blocked me for asking you about the zk L1 proposal that Jordan submitted to the $doge project's repository on Github. Prior, Jordan also blocked me for asking about his proposal that's been there for a year. Is there an issue in talking about L1?

• 
  Mahmoud Tantawy (@mtantawy) reported 22 minutes ago

  def not competitor but we're building a pipeline that would allow us to deploy when github is 100% down

• 
  whiteboy (@worldofwhiteboy) reported 22 minutes ago

  @HSVSphere @popovicu94 @esotericgooner in production you obviously do all the modern, correct things that you're supposed to do. on my personal box ? where i dont even run a web browser ? yeah my surface is minimal and i own my system, again. you're the problem. go re-invent the wheel another 1000 times, when you die we'll look over your github contributions and wonder how someone could waste so much time running in circles like a actual bon-a-fide retard. we'll wonder about all these software nerds that sat clicking buttons all day when the software was already written properly the first time. we'll marvel at how some fat idiot could sit around all day lil bro-ing people about "SELinux" and "self contained execution enviornments" instead of doing anything that actually matters to anyone or posterity. you're like a horse with blinders on, i bet you dont even know what GNU is.

• 
  Nigel (@nigel1) reported 23 minutes ago

  @cursor_ai Needed this bc GitHub is broken

• 
  Xiaoyan Tang (@xytangme) reported 26 minutes ago

  One trick works for me lately is to use github issue as the context layer. then I realized I just reinvented the colab part of software engineering?

• 
  Ashish Sharma (@_ashish_ts) reported 27 minutes ago

  @ThePrimeagen GitHub is down to earth 🌎

• 
  Ricardo (@Ric_RTP) reported 27 minutes ago

  Elon Musk just took Anthropic's biggest customer hostage three days before their IPO. He paid $60 billion for it without spending a dollar of cash. But the company he bought is actively losing the race he claims to be winning: The company is Cursor, the AI coding tool used by most of Silicon Valley and a huge chunk of Fortune 500 engineering teams. Its best feature is called Composer, and Composer became the most-loved AI coding product on earth for one specific reason: It runs on Anthropic's Claude. The phrase "vibe coding" was literally coined by a researcher playing with Cursor's Composer running on Claude Sonnet in early 2025. Anthropic's enterprise revenue exploded in 2025 partly because every engineer using Cursor was effectively a paying Anthropic customer underneath. Cursor became one of the largest external pipelines of Claude usage anywhere on the internet. And last week, Anthropic confidentially filed paperwork to go public. Three days after SpaceX completed its own IPO on Friday, Elon Musk exercised an option he had quietly signed in April and bought Cursor for $60 billion. The deal was announced Tuesday morning in an 8-K filing. By the time most people read the headline, the pipeline feeding Anthropic's biggest enterprise channel was already legally owned by its biggest RIVAL, days before that rival walks onto the public markets and has to explain its growth story to Wall Street. Now look at how he paid for it: Not one dollar of cash changed hands. The entire $60 billion was paid in SpaceX stock. Stock that was minted out of thin air on Friday when the company went public at $135 a share. By Tuesday, that same stock was trading at $211. So Musk used four days of public-market hype to mint $60 billion of fresh equity and immediately spent it on an acquisition that had been pre-arranged before anyone in the IPO even saw the prospectus. SpaceX investors who bought shares in the last four days got diluted by 3.4% before they understood what they owned. The IPO was literally the printing press for the acquisition. Now look at what he ACTUALLY bought: Cursor's market share among enterprise customers has been collapsing. According to spending data from Ramp, it fell from 41% in June 2025 to 26% in May 2026, bleeding ground every month to GitHub Copilot and Amazon Q. The smart money knew. Andreessen Horowitz, Thrive, and Nvidia were about to lead a round at a $50 billion valuation, which they already considered aggressive. Elon paid 20% more than that for a company actively LOSING the race. He paid premium for declining momentum. And he did this because his own AI division was in trouble. xAI has been struggling quite a bit so SpaceX needed an AI story that could survive a public-market quarterly earnings call. The fastest way to get one was to buy a brand engineers already trusted before that brand's market share slipped any further. So follow the whole chain: SpaceX went public to mint the currency. Elon used that currency to buy a fading market leader at a premium. And the seller of choice happened to be Anthropic's biggest enterprise pipeline with the timing landing in the exact window between Anthropic filing its prospectus and pricing its IPO. This was literally a hit job on Anthropic's IPO. Anthropic's next move is the one to watch. If they cannot show Wall Street that Cursor's revenue can be replaced fast, the most hyped AI IPO of the year just walked onto the public markets with a huge problem.

• 
  gaurav 🫆 (@gauravmandall) reported 32 minutes ago

  @noobdeveshjha Please don’t say that if that happens I’ll lose over 300 repos, all deployments, github action workflows and all websites i use login with github. isn’t this scary 😭

• 
  SushiRoll (@sushirollbt) reported 33 minutes ago

  @theo The workflows live right next to chats in the sidebar. You set up a source for them (GitHub issues, an asana board, a Jira project, etc) and criteria (bug, unassigned, a size, etc) and it can automatically pull in tickets, work on them and PR them. You can use multiple agents with escalation policies (did it fail with GPT-5.4 mini? Let’s try with GPT-5.5), looping code reviews, scripts to post to slack or respond to PR comments, etc.

• 
  Abdullah Alaqeel (@Aqeel_AT) reported 34 minutes ago

  @neogoose_btw I wanted to see the fff GitHub repo but couldn’t. I’ll have to search manually or open the link from my laptop. If the demo site is on github I’d love to fix the footer thingy

• 
  Peter Meyer 💙🥝🕊️ (@meyer_peace18) reported 37 minutes ago

  @realdrewcarson @Star_Knight12 10 agents arent the problem. The fun starts with 100 agents and when github is constantly down for some seconds lol. I do 2-5k contributions a day and constantly run into github errors

• 
  Ferbin (@Ferbin08) reported 39 minutes ago

  @swyx @TomasReimers @cursor_ai You could build better UX, better search, whatever. The product isn't the bottleneck. The real issue: every developer's collaborators are already on GitHub. That's the moat no competitor can beat.

• 
  Aakash (@zenmode_code) reported 42 minutes ago

  I spent 6 hours trying to fix a bug in our app's API gateway It was one of those issues where everything looked fine but the error logs told a different story I was about to give up when I stumbled upon a thread on an old GitHub issue The solution wasn't elegant

• 
  Bowen (@Bowen2xiong) reported 42 minutes ago

  @DavidSacks The numbers back this up. GitHub hit 275M commits/week in mid-2026. Claude Code alone generated 5.2M commits in Feb. The split worth watching: junior hiring at big tech down 22%, up 11% at startups. Senior hiring up 26% — the bottleneck is review and judgment, not code generation.

• 
  🅰️nzceel base.eth (@anzceel) reported 45 minutes ago

  Most crypto projects die twice. First when users leave. Then when the lessons disappear. My startup idea is FailureDB. The problem: Every cycle creates thousands of dead DAOs, NFT collections, tokens, and apps. New builders keep repeating the same mistakes because the evidence is scattered across old Discords, governance forums, GitHub repos, and forgotten posts. The solution: An AI-powered protocol that continuously archives failed projects and turns them into searchable intelligence. Ask it: "Why did similar NFT projects fail?" "What warning signs appeared before user growth collapsed?" "Which token models consistently broke down?" Instead of studying only winners, builders could learn from thousands of documented failures. Crypto has become excellent at preserving transactions. We're still terrible at preserving lessons. I'd love to see experiments like this emerge through ecosystems like @RallyOnChain. What failed project taught you the most?

• 
  Aryan Bola (@BolatwtX) reported 47 minutes ago

  GitHub killer With the recent bugs and problems in GitHub this is very likely

• 
  Stefano Marchetti (@StefanoMarchty) reported 49 minutes ago

  The 5 steps that turn a voice note into a live product: 1. Talk out your idea like you're telling a friend 2. AI turns it into a 6-block spec 3. AI writes the instructions for the coding agent 4. The agent builds it autonomously (you go get coffee) 5. Test → GitHub → deploy No CS degree. Just real understanding of the problem you're solving. That barrier is gone. It's not coming back.

• 
  Johann Siemens | Freedomeers (@johann_sie1985) reported 50 minutes ago

  @nneyoboy @N_and_ni Certs are an HR-Filter, not more, not less. The actual people who are hireing you from the Tech department don't really care about Certs, because you could've made it 6 months ago and then forgotten all the stuff you learned, because you never applied the knowledge afterwards, which is the main issue with learning stuff you don't use every day afterwards. I would argue that if you are appying for bigger companies, Certs are probably a solid helper to get through HR, but if you focus on smaller and mid-size companies who don't have an HR department then it's a waste of money, although some consulting companies want you to have them, because then they can easily "sell" your skills to customers. If i were you i would start screening the Cloud Engineering market in the area you want to apply for jobs and figure out what is beeing looked for, how long the jobs are "open", from which you can assume how strong the competition is and then you have a good overview on where your gaps are. I think building a well documented home-lab with GitHub and such will do more for you then Certs.

• 
  ndx (@netdragon0x) reported 50 minutes ago

  @Polymarket GitHub has a huge moat with OAuth. Even existing hosted *** competitors like GitLab/BitBucket barely even show up in OAuth login options.

• 
  ⚡️REIGN SHAMMY ⚡️ (@SHAZAMBFG) reported 54 minutes ago

  @IcedBone_ You can use the GitHub app feature they releaed. If it isn’t breaking down on you or freaking out. It’s still usable. But if you have to get a new switch/ mixer asap go rode

• 
  Jay.TL (@JayTL00) reported 55 minutes ago

  Cursor just announced Origin — a *** forge "built for the agentic era." 11.5K likes on the announcement. Nobody is asking the obvious question: is this a GitHub competitor, or the most aggressive vendor lock-in play since Microsoft bundled IE into Windows? The framing is "code storage and *** hosting." That's deliberately boring. Here's what's actually happening. 1. The review bottleneck, not storage, is the real target GitHub hit 275M commits per week by mid-2026. Claude Code alone generated 5.2M commits in February. Storage isn't the problem — scale is. Cursor's bet is that the bottleneck has moved. Junior hiring at big tech is down 22% this year; senior hiring is up 26%. The constraint is no longer generating code. It's reviewing it. Origin isn't competing on hosting features. It's competing on whether the review layer itself should be agent-native — where agents review agents, not humans reviewing agents. 2. The vertical stack is the actual product Think about what Cursor now controls after the SpaceX acquisition: - The editor (Cursor IDE) - The agent models (Composer, Fable integration) - The code storage (Origin) - The review pipeline (auto-review, already default for new users) That's not a tool. That's a platform. The last company to own the editor, the runtime, the storage, and the review surface was Microsoft in the Visual Studio era — and they used that stack to lock in an entire generation of enterprise developers. Origin's landing page says nothing about *** compatibility or migration. It says "join the waitlist." That silence is the strategy. 3. "Agent-native" is doing heavy lifting The phrase "a *** forge for the agentic era" sounds like marketing. It's the entire thesis. Traditional *** forges assume a human writes, a human pushes, a human reviews, a human merges. Origin assumes the opposite: an agent writes, an agent pushes, an agent reviews, an agent merges. The human shows up for the 5% of decisions that need judgment. This is why Origin handles 22+ commits per second and 290K+ clones per hour. Those numbers sound like infrastructure specs. They're actually throughput assumptions — Cursor is designing for a world where commit velocity is 100x human speed and the forge has to absorb it without breaking the review queue. But here's what most people missed: The lock-in isn't technical. It's economic. Once your agents are trained on Cursor's review patterns, your code review history lives in Origin's format, and your team's workflow is tuned to Cursor's auto-review classifier (97% accurate, already default), migrating away means retraining your entire agent fleet on a different review surface. You won't switch because you can't. Not because of lock-in. Because the switching cost is measured in agent retraining cycles, not in developer hours. GitHub's moat was 100M developers who learned its UI. Cursor's moat will be agents that learned its review grammar. The real question isn't whether Origin is better than GitHub. It's whether we're about to let one company own the entire code lifecycle — from generation to storage to review — at the exact moment code is becoming the most valuable asset class in the economy. We've seen this movie before. It didn't end well for developers last time.

• 
  Deepanker Verma (@deepanker70) reported 56 minutes ago

  Cursor just announced Origin, an AI-native alternative to GitHub. Origin is built around a future where AI agents clone repos, create branches, write code, fix bugs, run tests, and submit changes on their own. Now, Cursor is no longer just an AI coding editor. It is building an entire software development platform for the AI era. #Cursor #Github #Coding

• 
  Farshad (@fashadpasbani) reported 1 hour ago

  A GitHub Action that can't post a PR comment usually doesn't need more permissions — it needs the right one. Token scopes map to the resource, not the URL. PR comments live under pull-requests: write, even though the API path says /issues/. Worth knowing before it costs you an afternoon.

• 
  Alexander Cranga (@alexandercranga) reported 1 hour ago

  Why should I find issues with GitHub faster than they update their status page?