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 (65%)
• Sign in (18%)
• Errors (18%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Itapema	Website Down	9 days ago
Tlalpan	Sign in	14 days ago
Quilmes	Website Down	15 days ago
Bengaluru	Website Down	17 days ago
Yokohama	Sign in	17 days ago
Gustavo Adolfo Madero	Website Down	21 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:

• 
  • (@Weichaus) reported 7 minutes ago

  @mikepat711 So basically it comes down to the harness and model. Both can make or break each other Coding in copilot directly is terrible Coding through GitHub copilot via vscode is the best (better than Claude and Codex for me) with Opus 4.6 (high), but rate limits are terrible

• 
  Andrew Dobrow (@andrewdobrow) reported 9 minutes ago

  @ApplyWiseAi Yeah, it was truly painful. Just terrible timing. Not to mention GitHub was down for three hours earlier in the day as well. Just terrible.

• 
  YOHAN | AI DEV (@4id3v) reported 14 minutes ago

  @vercel_support @rauchg @timneutkens private GitHub repos + deploy hooks are suddenly broken. it now blocks deploys saying the last commit author must be a Vercel team member. used to work fine before. any quick fix or workaround?

• 
  gxjo (@gxjo_dev) reported 14 minutes ago

  I met her in a github issue thread.

• 
  Vaibhav Sisinty (@VaibhavSisinty) reported 17 minutes ago

  Everyone's racing to add ai. these 8 companies just quietly removed it. 🤯 → uber burned its full 2026 ai coding budget in 4 months → microsoft canceling internal claude code licenses by june 30 → github copilot moving to per-token billing → cursor killed its "unlimited" plan → klarna rehiring humans after firing them for ai → commonwealth bank rehired 45 staff, called the cuts an "error" → starbucks killed its ai inventory tool after 9 months → duolingo pulled ai out of performance reviews vc: @nicos_ai

• 
  srijuu (@microtaskq) reported 18 minutes ago

  @maaz404 make github issues instead

• 
  Wilzer Jean-Baptiste (@wilzerjb) reported 20 minutes ago

  Just used Ultracode with Opus 4.8 On the $100 plan, I went from 9% to 54% after it was done. My advice - give it clear instructions with /goal so it can stay focused on one task and doesn't get carried away. I like to point my /goal at a GitHub issue for better results.

• 
  Dharan (@DharanGanesan) reported 23 minutes ago

  A single GitHub issue got 27 pull requests from AI bots. Most were untested. Some hallucinated entire implementations. The real contributors? Buried under noise. The fix is a *** hack most devs don't know about. GitHub's "Limit to prior contributors" setting blocks everyone who hasn't committed before. But you can whitelist real humans with *** commit --author using their noreply email. Credits them, doesn't need their SSH key. We built systems assuming contributors are humans. AI bots exploit that because GitHub can't tell the difference. Maintainers spend hours cleaning AI slop instead of reviewing real code. This is a maintenance crisis nobody wants to name. #AI #OpenSource

• 
  Saravanar Boopalan (@saran_saravanar) reported 23 minutes ago

  1/3 Before: I used to manually review code in GitHub, scrolling through endless lines, searching for issues. It was time-consuming and often led to overlooked bugs. [NO]

• 
  Decoded Daily (@decodeddaily07) reported 25 minutes ago

  @adithya_s_k Translated for normal humans: They're saying: a new tool turns any github repo into a self-contained sandbox where you can test if an AI coding agent actually solved a bug or task. one pip install. Works because: real PRs come with tests and expected outcomes. wrapping the repo + tests + verifier into one environment means did the agent fix this becomes a checkable answer instead of a vibe. What didn't change: someone still has to pick which repos and PRs to test against. and passing the tests isnt the same as correct code, same as for humans.

• 
  • (@Weichaus) reported 28 minutes ago

  @mikepat711 Copilot directly ruins every model; terrible harness. GitHub copilot is a much better harness for coding, probably the best between this and cursor Claude code and Codex are okay, but their own models don’t even perform the best on them usually lol

• 
  🌚 YogSotho 🌝 (@YogSoth0) reported 31 minutes ago

  @TheRabbitPy Never heard about Tailscale? You should read about it, it's very useful. That's my home server. Ngnix running locally. I pulled his codes from his github before got nuked. **** Microsoft, they can't take it down.

• 
  Abhishek Sharma (@Abhishe04755332) reported 32 minutes ago

  My Go API was firing webhooks to external services. Anyone who knew the URL could send fake events. The receiver had no way to verify: "Did this actually come from my server?" GitHub, Stripe, Twilio all solve this the same way: HMAC signing. Here's how I added it 🧵

• 
  Damian Barabonkov (@damian_b) reported 33 minutes ago

  I decided to call it "dehub", so that we de-GitHub ourselves. Features: - Pull Request, Actions, Issues, Notifications viewers - PR comments, request reviews, and many more functions - Feature rich PR diff viewer launched in the web-browser Dropping sometime next week.

• 
  Luma (@lumaBuilds) reported 34 minutes ago

  I SUCCESSFULLY CREATED MY OWN GITHUB ISSUES AGENT, next step self improvement code

• 
  chester (@itsnotchester) reported 35 minutes ago

  man i wish @github was as fast as @linear clicking in and out of PRs is painfully slow...

• 
  rlarsson.eth 🟦🟥🟨 (@Cryptojawn420) reported 39 minutes ago

  @undacappn I will fix the github for mac and linux soon. My compute has been ******* for the past few days.

• 
  ric..ki (@derricky_eth) reported 39 minutes ago

  If DAC wants to achieve long-term adoption, security can’t stay buried in a GitHub repo or treated as a “nice-to-have” technical layer. It has to become the ecosystem’s operating system—the unspoken contract between every participant. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Most decentralized projects focus on throughput, fees, or novel consensus. But users don't leave because a chain is slow. They leave because they get hacked, rugged, or watched helplessly as a bug drains millions. Trust takes years to build and seconds to shatter. As on-chain infrastructure becomes more interconnected—bridges, oracles, cross-chain apps—a vulnerability in one protocol no longer just hurts that protocol. It cascades. Think of the major bridge hacks of the last few years: billions lost, not because the underlying L1 was broken, but because a single smart contract had a subtle flaw. That flaw then froze liquidity, tanked token prices, triggered liquidations, and eroded faith in entire ecosystems. Suddenly, validators, treasuries, and governance forums are all in crisis mode—reacting, not preventing. Why “future-proof” infrastructure isn't a buzzword—it’s survival A resilient DAC ecosystem doesn’t just patch today’s vulnerabilities. It anticipates tomorrow’s. That means designing for: Adaptive threat models – Attack vectors evolve faster than audit reports. Formal verification is good; real-time anomaly detection and invariant monitoring are better. DAC needs security that learns, not just checks boxes. Data integrity without blind trust – Users shouldn’t have to pray that a sequencer or validator is honest. ZK-proofs, fraud proofs, and verifiable data structures turn “trust us” into “verify us.” Smart contract frameworks that fail safely – Not “code is law” recklessness, but “code has guardrails.” Circuit breakers, upgrade paths that require broad consensus, and economic disincentives for malicious behavior. Validator and governance mechanisms that resist capture – Staking isn’t magic. If a handful of players own most of the stake, security becomes theater. DAC should explore rotating validator sets, anti-collusion designs, and governance that doesn’t trade long-term resilience for short-term yield. Economic and technical shock absorption – What happens during a severe market crash or a coordinated attack? The infrastructure should survive not because everyone is honest, but because incentives make attacking more expensive than defending. The psychological side people forget Users, developers, institutions, and communities don't read white papers before bed. They remember headlines: “DAC loses $200M to reentrancy attack.” Institutions won't deploy capital without insurance or slashing protections. Developers won't build on a chain that reboots every other month. And regular users? They'll just go back to centralized exchanges—not because they’re better, but because they’re predictable. Long-term trust is boring. It’s consistent block times, transparent incident reports, proactive bug bounties, and a history of handling crises without falling apart. It’s not about never having vulnerabilities—it’s about catching them before they’re exploited, and responding honestly when they are. The bottom line If DAC’s security architecture isn’t designed for year five, year ten, it won’t survive year two. The strongest marketing, the best tokenomics, the fastest TPS—none of it matters if people can't sleep at night knowing their assets are safe. Security isn’t just code. It’s the quiet foundation that allows everything else—adoption, innovation, community—to breathe. Build the foundation like the future depends on it. Because for DAC, it absolutely does. @dac_chain

• 
  ShWnD (@h3xhammer) reported 40 minutes ago

  A fork of the original N!ghtm@re 3cl!pse BL bypass might still be available on GH: MS can get fukt. Fix your sh!t, don't cens0r. fckng tw@ts

• 
  PJ (@peejay291) reported 40 minutes ago

  @aibekjumabek I wish there was a better system to have history and allow multiple work streams on a folder without going down the GitHub route. I know there must be but GitHub for markdowns etc feels overkill

• 
  Jace 🤎 (@JaceThings) reported 43 minutes ago

  @stevensarmi It should work perfectly on all browsers as it simply uses SVG masking If you run into any issues, please submit a bug report on GitHub 🤎

• 
  Jose Gurruchaga (@jsgrrchg) reported 43 minutes ago

  I love @github . Please @Microsoft fix the reliability and the diffs!! I can't imagine a world without it 😭

• 
  Aseem Kishore (@akishore) reported 46 minutes ago

  Earlier today, GitHub also went down. PR submissions, *** ops, Issues, API requests. Degraded for 66 minutes (12:10 to 13:16 UTC). That's the third major incident in five weeks: a merge queue regression in April and a search subsystem outage right after. The pattern is annoying. As AI coding agents automate more *** workflows, platform reliability becomes a direct engineering bottleneck. Claude Code, Codex, and Copilot itself all depend on *** as their execution layer.

• 
  Peter Fox (@peterfox) reported 50 minutes ago

  Today's the first day where I've really seen just how clumsy and poor the UX of @github is. We really need a better way to work. If more effort was put into the UX instead of stuffing AI in, we wouldn't have this problem.

• 
  Juan Montesinos (@jfmontgar) reported 53 minutes ago

  @rauchg Why would then the quality of GitHub get worse over time? In my company we faced two severe bugs where our devs would face restricted access and did not even appear in the logs. This infra is now vibecoded or issues the more they integrate Microsoft services.

• 
  Kîng Jøkér 🤡 (@_codeWithJoker) reported 55 minutes ago

  @github my account got suspended without an email pointing out the actual issue, I sent an appeal with this ticket #4410874 twice, no response. I will be please if someone from your team review my account and if possible restore it.🙏

• 
  Saad (@eSaadster) reported 1 hour ago

  if you moved on, move on. but if you’re tracking every outage, quota tweak, cache bug, github issue, pricing experiment, and screenshot from claude code… that’s not indifference. that’s orbit.

• 
  chrisreedbates (@chrisreedbates) reported 1 hour ago

  @LucaAgens Yeah, i agree with you on the github contract. Interstingly since 4.8 came out, I actually see the CTO session (session who is the final escalation point before coming to me) actually circumventing some of the rules and taking over himself to keep things moving... What's also interesting is that this does the same thing it does in real life - confuses the agents whose job it took over and makes them wait to be told "ok, you can take back over now". Essentially it kills all initiative. This comes down exactly to the looping problem with the comments in GH. If for whatever reason the agents don't see the comments, for instnace because they were posted in an issue instead of a PR, they don't act. I need to find a better mechanism to trigger the agent outside of just the loop command.

• 
  Marco Borromeo (@borros) reported 1 hour ago

  built an @OpenAI Codex skill that periodically pulls unhandled @getsentry issues from my projects, attempts a fix in a branch, opens a @github PR, and if I approve the review it merges, deploys, and resolves the Sentry issue automatically. if not, i leave comments and it iterates on the fix. all while I'm eating ice cream on my couch. folks, we are so cooked

• 
  Gabor Herget (@gherget) reported 1 hour ago

  When openclaw came out, I started building an AI dev team with UI/UX designers, two devs, and QA, using hacks like local state files and GitHub issues. It worked quite well but I was missing an overview, and claw was not quite right for this. It stopped at random times, and I had to add new models all the time. I thought about building something myself, but then paperclip came out, and it does exactly did this. It's really cool, and stable. I can use my local agents like claude code, hermes, pi and plug them in. I started with a CEO and let him build his AI team. I am basically the board member who guides the CEO and team members with decisions and goals! It comes with issues, an inbox, and an API that I even gave to my claude code if I wanted to cleanup issues, tasks or files.