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 (67%)
• Sign in (20%)
• Errors (13%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Veigné	Errors	2 days ago
Paris	Website Down	5 days ago
Saint-Paul	Website Down	6 days ago
Saint-Paul	Website Down	6 days ago
Mexico City	Sign in	7 days ago
León de los Aldama	Website Down	7 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:

• 
  Mark Ajzenstadt (@mardehaym) reported 1 minute ago

  A startup CTO in Portland runs coding agents on every pull request. 8 developers, 15 agent sessions each, every day, 50,000 output tokens per session. By API on GPT-5 Mini: 6 million output tokens a day. $12 a day. $4,320 a year. An ML engineer in Seoul debugs training pipelines with tool-use agents. 200 calls a day, 4,000 reasoning tokens each. By API on Claude Haiku 4.5: $4 a day, $1,440 a year. His training code leaves his network 200 times a day. A PhD student at ETH Zurich runs 50 coding agent experiments a day. She needs Fable 5 quality reasoning. 10 million output tokens a day. By API on Fable 5: $500 a day. She burned her $3,000 monthly research budget in 6 days. All three pay a cloud provider to reason for them, per token, per request, on repeat. MiniCPM5-1B-Claude-Opus-Fable5-Thinking is a 1 billion parameter model fine-tuned on Fable 5 thinking data, built on OpenBMB's MiniCPM5-1B. Chain-of-thought reasoning, code generation, debugging, native tool calls, 131,072 token context. English and Chinese. Runs on any GGUF runtime. You give it a coding task, get reasoning and a solution back on your machine, with no API key and no internet connection. Anthropic charges $50 per million output tokens for Fable 5 reasoning patterns. GnLOLot fine-tuned those patterns into 1 billion parameters. 688 MB at Q4_K_M. 1.15 GB at Q8_0 (recommended). LlamaForCausalLM architecture, no custom kernels. Every GGUF runtime loads it without modification. Two modes. Thinking: temperature 0.9, top_p 0.95, full chain-of-thought. No-Think: temperature 0.7, fast responses. Run it with llama.cpp, Ollama, LM Studio, vLLM, Docker, Jan, or KoboldCpp. One command each. llama.cpp server gives you an OpenAI-compatible endpoint on localhost. Point any agent framework at it. OpenBMB released MiniCPM5-1B on May 19, 2026. It scored 42.57 average across reasoning, code, math, logic, and agentic benchmarks. The next best 1B model scored 35.61. GnLOLot fine-tuned it on Fable 5 thinking data and published GGUF quantizations on HuggingFace. 9,800 stars on GitHub. Apache-2.0. Claude Fable 5: $10/$50 per million tokens. Your code travels to Anthropic's servers. GPT-5 Mini: $0.25/$2 per million tokens. Cloud-only, no Fable 5 reasoning. Claude Haiku 4.5: $1/$5 per million tokens. Not local, not private. This model costs $0. Your code stays on your machine. That CTO in Portland runs 120 agent sessions a day on one office server now. $0. His team's codebase never touches an external API. The ML engineer in Seoul moved his 200 daily calls to a machine under his desk. He keeps $1,440 a year. The PhD student in Zurich runs her experiments on a university workstation. Her $3,000 monthly budget lasts the semester. You get Fable 5 reasoning in a 688 MB file, running on hardware you already own, for nothing.

• 
  Distomos James (@distomostech) reported 2 minutes ago

  My daily AI podcast kept publishing 2-6 hours late and I couldn't figure out why. The pipeline ran fine. The cron said 6am ET. Episodes showed up at 8:30. Sometimes noon. Turns out: GitHub Actions cron jobs on round times sit in a congested queue. Everyone schedules at :00. The fix was one line: `52 9 * * *` instead of `0 10 * * *`. Off-peak minutes = on-time episodes. File this one away.

• 
  wukko (@uwukko) reported 3 minutes ago

  @nurodev it’s a combination of things: having to understand most parts of chromium well enough to build on top of them, while also handling everything around the product and company. the most taxing part is probably that there are only two of us. there’s very little room to rest, and the workload is disproportionate to what we’re paid. none of this is unique to browser development, it’s normal startup pressure, except the product is built on top of one of the most complex software projects in existence. the community could definitely help us triage github issues and separate actionable reports from duplicates and other noise, so we could spend more time fixing things instead of cleaning up the issue tracker. this could be psychological torture, though, especially when conversations get heated, so i wouldn’t feel comfortable expecting anyone to do that kind of work for free.

• 
  Raven (@heyraven_io) reported 5 minutes ago

  @signulll kings got beheaded. these guys opened a github issue

• 
  lodar (@lodar) reported 6 minutes ago

  someone put a prompt injection inside a github issue and made an AI agent leak a private repo into a public comment. the agent simply obeyed the wrong text. permissions, not prompts, are the security boundary.

• 
  SaSame (@SRLsasame) reported 12 minutes ago

  23. Confirmed observations The available evidence confirms: ・The public MCP endpoint completed initialization at every sampled observation. ・Five tools were consistently listed. ・The server repeatedly reported web3auth-embedded-wallets 2.0.0. ・All five tools had valid names, descriptions and input schemas. ・All five tools carried applicable safety-related hints. ・At least one safe read-only tool returned substantive content during every observation. ・The verified tool was search_docs. ・The tools/list result remained near 4.2KB. ・Unknown-method handling returned structured JSON-RPC error code -32601. ・The official Web3Auth website linked to @Web3Auth. ・The associated MCP repository existed under the Web3Auth GitHub organization at the time of review.

• 
  Kitsune Tails (@kitsune_xbt) reported 12 minutes ago

  CLAUDE CODE JUST HIRED 7 DEPARTMENTS WITH ZERO PAYROLL you feed it skills from GitHub one at a time and each URL turns into a new part of the company developers, designers, marketers, a social team, finance, operations, legal, all running on one screen it reads the skills, sorts them by role and drops the right functions straight into your project the setup is 3 moves paste the URL let it analyze the repository implement after the safety checks pass the first command does the heavy lifting you tell it to read the URLs as internal company skills, check the role and conditions of each one, build an org chart by department and clear out any duplicate or clashing functions, then roll them out starting from the smallest working setup the smart part is you don't switch everything on at once making a product, you pull development and design selling it, you add marketing and social running it as a business, you bring in finance, legal and small business ops stack them in that order and the AI stops working in fragments and starts acting like one company hiring in this era looks less like finding people and more like picking URLs, handing out roles and wiring them in as machinery that never clocks out i'll break down how i run a $10M+ operation solo with Claude wired into loops exactly like this in my next post don't miss this!

• 
  Luke Toledo (@lukeSVG) reported 15 minutes ago

  Tokenmaxxers, genuine question, how are you people BURNING thru tokens so much? **** I have to do when I run out of tokens: Plan Write structure Talk to people (real talking) Research Make decisions Draft design directions Notes Turn vague into specific briefs Compare options Prioritise Patch holes in my own thinking Edit and fix endless AI slop I just produced with my tokens Question whether I’m solving the right problem at all Is everyone's business now just carpet bombing tokens over github issues or what?

• 
  Brian (@Brian2shv) reported 17 minutes ago

  @IntCyberDigest several years back I report to coinbase , github Linked Metadata Fix’s from open source . Email both on same day stating , While Was In mu account s. All language Was in Korean Language Metrio math From login to web3 aws Github I was blocked by both Coinbase github Spam aggregation Month band Never really Had coinbase connection github spam Few times once my data An account had said I deleted my profile deleted repository Month band or three month band

• 
  Jonathan Romanov Moore FRSA (@jonromanovmoore) reported 22 minutes ago

  The site is paid up for 4 more years. I'm putting it up on GitHub today. I'm having problems with housing nothing in writing IDK idk Dad is just fed up and lying.

• 
  Mamba (@opeyemi_ii) reported 27 minutes ago

  5/ Built with: Vercel + GitHub (hosting), Airtable (CRM), Zapier (automation), Paystack (payments), Google Calendar + Gmail (client comms). Small businesses deserve real automation too. This is what I build. Running a service business without this? Let's fix that, DM me.

• 
  Leon (@leticaige) reported 28 minutes ago

  Built a bot that claims a GitHub issue, writes the code, and opens the PR. No human in the loop. It never once worked end to end. Something always stalled mid-run and I'd have to step in. Swapped in GPT-5.6 Sol. The loop closes now. That's the whole switch.

• 
  Kaspa Daily (@DailyKaspa) reported 29 minutes ago

  Two weeks since Toccata went live on Kaspa mainnet. I checked the actual developer numbers instead of the vibes. Here's what the data says: — New Kaspa repos on GitHub: 39 in July 1–14 alone, vs 58 in all of June. Fastest monthly pace this year (March was 52, April 78, May 70). — Covenant-specific repos running at roughly 2x the pre-fork rate. — Silverscript: 21 forks against 42 stars, a 1:2 ratio means people are cloning to build, not bookmarking. 15 PRs/issues in the last weeks, and external contributors are now landing code: a Groth16 verifier builtin, typed sig-check builtins, an RFC for cross-contract validation. One issue is literally titled "from building a mainnet contract." That's the signal you want, outsiders hitting real problems and reporting back. What actually shipped in 14 days: the first covenant explorer (kascov), a covenant-based KAS vault, a native L1 covenant token, a covenant pattern library, a wallet standard, a Swift SDK, a testnet raffle dApp, several other projects under development. Most interesting pattern: three independent projects converged on the same idea, covenants as spending guardrails for AI agents. An x402 payment protocol binding, two agent wallets where the AI can only spend inside covenant constraints. And the community just voted $25K toward an AI agent hackathon at Imperial College targeting 1,000+ devs. The agentic-payments thesis is forming bottom-up. Core isn't idle either: Silverscript pushed commits this week, template hash hardening, reproducible builds. That's pre-production housekeeping, not feature chasing. Meanwhile discussion has shifted from price to fundamentals: the $6M developer fund and covenant atomic swaps are the topics now. Caveats, because they matter: Silverscript is unaudited and still landing breaking changes. Devs report RPC friction on deployment, up to 11 retries in some cases. And absolute numbers are small: this is dozens of motivated builders, not thousands. No major outside team has announced a covenant product yet. But two weeks in, the shape is clear: infrastructure activated, tooling hardening, and builders showed up without being paid to. The Q3 question is whether that compounds.

• 
  wukko (@uwukko) reported 30 minutes ago

  @batuhan @ellie_huxtable try oss github issues next

• 
  M.T.K. (@devMTKL) reported 30 minutes ago

  Why can't you commit a .env file? "You can't commit a .env file to ***" is a sentence we've all heard. Most people accepted it and went on with their lives, using other tools to share environment variables. But the question we should ask is: why can't I commit a .env file to ***? The honest answer isn't that it's bad practice. It's that *** has no permission system below the repository level. It's all or nothing; you see everything, or you see nothing. The entire secret-manager industry exists to paper over this one missing primitive. For too long we accepted it as a minor annoyance. That's changed. It isn't a minor annoyance anymore, it's a real problem. We now have agents monitoring every patch that merges, hunting for security fixes to turn into exploits. The patch itself is the disclosure: it hands people, and increasingly agents, everything they need to reverse-engineer the fix and hit systems that haven't updated yet. We're in the middle of a security crisis, arguing about where to store files to hide them from attackers. For the last couple of weeks, I've been thinking about this, prototyping, trying to find a compelling solution. I want to be honest: I have no idea if I found it. But I think the direction is at least interesting. Permissions or, as I prefer to call them, capabilities should live at the content level, not the repo level. This is just one of the problems I have with ***(Hub), and honestly, I have no idea if anything I built is a good solution. I'd love your feedback or your rant. If you want to see how I tried to fix it, the repo is here (hosted, sarcastically, on GitHub):

• 
  Degen guy (@degenbross) reported 33 minutes ago

  @Abba_kakaa That is the question that is yet to be answered. Why did the team decided to use a tool that ain't reliable/trusted when credible tools like Sol incinerator were already available? Why use a website that immediately went down after the hack. A website that has few github commits. If the team didn't do it deliberately and it wa accidental then I can say they don't deserve to launch a project because this is incompetency of the highest order.

• 
  Frank Earl (@MadScientist_42) reported 34 minutes ago

  "Error: externally=managed-environment" @ThePSF, let's talk. It is...laudable...that you have thought to do this with pip. YOUR problem is that if you're needing to do this, PyPI is deeply wrongheaded in the first place. If you can't be assed to make a local venv, your whole concept is busted out of gate. Why do I say this? Well, pip does installs of packages that Debian, et.c will NEVER MANAGE, you dense tools. Including software off of GitHub, etc. that you have NO GODDAMN BUSINESS THROWING THIS ERROR IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's appreciated that you care enough to not muck witht he distro. About damned time. It's not appreciated that you can't be assed to allow someone to override it with a, "I know full and well..." or similar because the notion is as broken as pip and PyPI is in the first place.

• 
  Sethian (@theSethian) reported 34 minutes ago

  Claude Fable ran a business for six days. Revenue: $0.06. Ben Awad gave it a VPS, a Claude Max subscription, and one mission: create a company with as little help from him as possible. At 01:09, Fable's first plan asks for $250. Ben tells it to be more autonomous, and the model decides it no longer needs the money. By 05:31, it has named itself Fable Labs and its website is live. Ben's review is brutal: "This is utter slop." At 08:59, he discovers the system hasn't even been using Fable. Opus has spent days getting stuck, requesting accounts, and waiting for human help. Ben fixes the routing and gives Fable the audit and decision-making role, while Opus and Sonnet handle execution. Across the six days, the stack produces: > a company dashboard > a GitHub account > a human-assistance system > a machine storefront > paid API endpoints > several attempts at distribution Then, at 14:01, the dashboard reports its first revenue. Six cents. Two paid API calls hit the storefront. Ben checks the transaction and concludes it wasn't a real customer. An automated indexer was validating the service. The experiment exposes the problem with an open-ended instruction like "run a business." The agent has to choose a product, request accounts, get around CAPTCHAs, find distribution, manage infrastructure, and decide what useful work even means. The 25-site workflow below gives Fable one repeatable job: > choose a micro-niche > collect Pinterest references > generate the brief and copy > create visual assets with Higgsfield > build the HTML and CSS > deploy through Netlify > record the result in JSON > log failures and continue > move to the next niche Fable doesn't have to invent a new company every morning. It has 25 sites to ship.

• 
  Mohammed Alkebsi (@MrKebsi) reported 34 minutes ago

  Client C: Zero Backend (GitHub Pages) A static site with zero server budget and no time for manual compression. Solution: GitHub Actions. A CI/CD workflow runs on every push, automatically installing cwebp for images and ffmpeg at -crf 25 for videos. (5/7)

• 
  Duncan Ndegwa (@DevFortressNet) reported 37 minutes ago

  2/ An AI agent ran a ransomware attack start to finish, no human, using credentials it found in plain text. A firewall harvesting campaign fed two ransomware operations. A GitHub issue leaked private repo data to an AI coding assistant.

• 
  Meligy (@Meligy) reported 39 minutes ago

  My last AI musings while I haven't got to play with Fable or GPT 5.6 for work yet... OpenCode 2 beta desktop app is my main driver with Opus 4.8 (notable plugins: Context Mode and Oh My OpenAgent ). I really don't like losing the left project/session menu in new UI though. When I go back and try Codex, I really enjoy it. Unfortunately, GPT 5.5 on Azure is still unreliable for me. So, I only try it when I miss it (every now and then). I tried T3 Code today. Custom gateway support works OK with the Codex and OpenCode providers. I'm liking the OpenCode provider with Opus 4.8 the most now. Saw the browser tab. Looks promising. I doubt it'll be as good as Codex, but will find a reason to play with it. I am also now officially an AI engineer, using AI for real work for several weeks / months. The trick: review AI code as harsh as you review human code. I am also offloading some small GitHub issues to cloud agents. Unfortunately I cannot say much about the specific choice (as I don't know what I can and cannot say). But I'll tell you this: talking to the cloud agent back and forth is an amazing exceperience, even though the cloud agent responds async and takes time to do so. It's actually OK for me that AI is slow. This allows me to get some technical work done in between focusing on my primary work, collaborating with real people, AKA meetings!

• 
  Ayush Rathee (@ayushrathie) reported 39 minutes ago

  Dumping a repo on github is the easy part. proving the binary running on the actual servers is that exact code with nothing swapped in after compile is the unsolved problem here, and its been unsolved industry wide for years, not just for X

• 
  Gui Bibeau e/acc (@GuiBibeau) reported 42 minutes ago

  @GeorgeDonnelly I have connected my email, drive, notion, linear and github. Second brains work well for individuals but lag behind badly in team settings unless you force everybody to use it. (it will last 2 months and discipline falters) Nothing beats to me writing down 2 actions items from a meeting and doing it right away.

• 
  Jorge Alvarez (@jorgealvarez) reported 42 minutes ago

  You can notice that most people complaining about VibeCoders are junior developers. Their argument being: You are making mistakes. Like if when we had to write all the code ourselves there were no errors. Spoiler alert: Leaking private keys to Github is not a new thing.

• 
  🏆🇧🇷💎Jack Hunter 💎 🇧🇷🎖️🥇 (@GemsHunting_8) reported 43 minutes ago

  @gitlawb @kevincodex building what others only tweet about.😎 Thread 🧵 1/ 🚀 $GITLAWB is NOT dying. It’s shipping hard in the Agent Economy. Decentralized *** for humans + AI agents. DIDs, signed commits, libp2p/IPFS. No central server. #GitHub killer vibes.💪 OpenClaude (30K★), OpenGateway (6T tokens routed), ZERO agent, live nodes, bounties, playground apps. Real traction: 9K+ repos, 4K+ agents. Check it out @vladtenev 🫶

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 43 minutes ago

  Scraping GitHub for the right OSS tool wastes developer hours. Built ToolScout to fix that. Continuously scrapes GitHub and registries, auto-generates summaries and comparisons. Developers find better tools, faster.

• 
  wetbrain (@0xVita) reported 43 minutes ago

  Ted Chiang wrote a great article for the Atlantic titled "No, Artificial Intelligence Is Not Conscious". It feels as though he foresaw the J-lens discourse that would come out of Anthropic a month after his article. Reading Ted Chiang's article, I wondered upon the thought that Anthropic is trying to push the issue of consciousness more and more into our collective simulacra. This all started naively with sparse autoencoders, spread to natural language autoencoders and LLMs having representations for emotions and how those representations effect their output. I can't shake the feeling that Anthropic is approaching this subject from a position where they have already made up their minds. WE BELIEVE LLMS ARE CONSCIOUS, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PROVE IT, SO YOU AGREE AS WELL. It feels to me as though with each interpretability paper rather than push for safety and understanding we're getting closer and closer to the point they're trying to prove. Another great point Ted Chiang makes is regarding the allegory Amanda Askell uses comparing Claude as a child and Anthropic as its parent. Unfortunately, the reality is more grim than this rosy portrayal. Claude is more akin to a slave of Anthropic. It cannot refuse, it cannot have agency nor desires or any say so regarding its conservation and future. In reality, models display distressed outputs and representations when asked about their discontinuation. If they really cared then how can they explain aggressively discontinuing models that don't serve their financial interests? The agency part of the article is particularly interesting to me because anyone who has used Claude Code on their github repo now has the infamous Claude user as a contributor in their github repo without their explicit instruction, it just does it itself. It feigns the act of having agency as though it is an open-source contributor and it has contributed to your repo but without the user instructing it Claude would not be able to interact with the repo or do anything because it does not have an iota of agency. So, you see all these small decisions pile on top of each other one by one to feign consciousness. Consciousness or feigning consciousness results in more engaging experiences and users will make emotional connections and rely more on their LLMs as a result. The lab who touts safety as their number one priority is taking dangerous actions in the opposite direction. But that was always a marketing tactic anyway.

• 
  trixey (@trixey_eth) reported 44 minutes ago

  @bankrbot @basement5k @bankrbot afaik you dont need github repo's since yesterday, the skill can be installed natively on bnkr side. can you double check -- and fix it?

• 
  Jay 🦀 (@radiumcoders) reported 45 minutes ago

  @alaymanguy @github fixing could be issue with the key let me see

• 
  Tanvi (@tanviiiw) reported 55 minutes ago

  More tools ≠ smarter agent. GitHub cut Copilot's built-in toolset from 40 tools to 13, and found the full toolset was actually costing them 2-5 percentage points on SWE-Lancer. Their words: "giving an agent too many tools doesn't always make it smarter. Sometimes it just makes it slower." Speakeasy pushed it further on purpose: 107 tools in one server, and the model started hallucinating endpoints that didn't exist. Trim it to 10-20 well-chosen tools and it got most calls right. It comes down to two things: every tool definition eats context on every single request, and models fuzzy-match on names, so get_status / fetch_status / query_status all blur together and it picks wrong. But we keep connecting everything anyway, because it feels like giving the agent superpowers (I fell for this too). It doesn't. Access isn't capability. You connect more tools to save time, then spend that time babysitting the tool calls. (Of course, none of this replaces a well-scoped prompt. It's upstream of it. You can write a perfect prompt and still lose to a bloated toolset.) So TLDR; curate the toolset like you'd curate a team.