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 (19%)
• Errors (15%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Créteil	Website Down	21 days ago
Trichūr	Errors	25 days ago
Brasília	Sign in	25 days ago
Lyon	Website Down	25 days ago
Tel Aviv	Website Down	29 days ago
Rive-de-Gier	Website Down	29 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:

• 
  Brenden Bishop (@bbishdotdev) reported 36 seconds ago

  @mattpocockuk I have to say wayfinder moving the content to GitHub issues instead of living in the codebase via context files and ADR is a huge advantage over grill-with-docs

• 
  Kitsune Tails (@kitsune_xbt) reported 4 minutes ago

  THIS GUY CUT HIS CLAUDE BILL BY 70% WITH ONE FREE MICROSOFT TOOL NOBODY IS USING every PDF you drop into Claude is quietly burning way more tokens than you think Claude doesn't just read the text, it processes the broken tables, the images and all the junk formatting the file drags along one page can eat 1,500 to 3,000 tokens a 20 page document burns up to 70,000 tokens before you even ask your first question the fix is a Microsoft tool called Markitdown free, open source, over 110,000 stars on GitHub it takes PDFs, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, even YouTube videos and turns them into clean Markdown text up to 70% fewer tokens and better answers, because Claude was trained on millions of Markdown docs and reads it natively the part most people miss is it ships with an MCP server connect it to Claude Desktop once and it auto converts every file you upload from then on this is exactly the kind of small setup tweak I put in my writeup on 20 CLAUDE md rules for getting ahead of your competitors by 5 years we have been overpaying for months on something Microsoft already solved want the 2 minute setup? comment and I'll drop it

• 
  Linda Wasson G.E.D. B.S. M.F.A.🌻🇺🇦🌻🇵🇸🙏☮️ (@backroads_linda) reported 4 minutes ago

  @IskanderGaba Old-timer here: didn't know GitHub was sold to MS tho I can see how it happened & understand the futility of expecting anyone turning down the billions paid for it. Still it's💔to learn MS has it as they've managed to destroy each & every worthwhile project they've ever acquired.

• 
  Hot Aisle (@HotAisle) reported 7 minutes ago

  Wow. I used to do so many hacks to get this functionality. I once built a cf worker caching layer in front of github so that I could have 30k servers downloading private repo binaries without getting rate limited by GH. Eventually hit one of cf’s undocumented rate limits and had to get an account exec to fix it.

• 
  Spencer Baggins (@bigaiguy) reported 8 minutes ago

  SOMEONE BUILT A GITHUB REPO THAT TURNS TELEGRAM INTO UNLIMITED CLOUD STORAGE. 100% free. It is called UnlimCloud. Self-hosted-ish desktop app. Open source. Uses Telegram as the storage layer. You log in with your Telegram ID. Upload files. Download files. Organize folders. Manage pictures and videos in a gallery. That is it. No Google Drive upgrade screen. No Dropbox “you are out of space.” No iCloud begging for $2.99/month. No random startup holding your files hostage. Your Telegram. Your files. Your storage. Here is the full feature set: ↳ Uses Telegram as the backend storage layer ↳ Secure login with your Telegram account ↳ Upload, download, and organize files ↳ Folder-based file management ↳ Gallery for photos and videos ↳ Clean desktop app interface ↳ Built with Tauri ↳ Windows release available ↳ macOS and Linux coming soon ↳ MIT licensed ↳ Open source 885 GitHub stars. 125 forks already. Here is why this matters: For years, cloud storage companies trained everyone to rent space for their own files forever. Photos? Pay. Backups? Pay. Large folders? Pay. Team storage? Pay more. UnlimCloud is the opposite idea. Take an app people already use every day. Telegram. And turn it into a private cloud drive with a clean file manager on top. No storage subscription. No SaaS dashboard. No “pro” plan. Just a weird, useful, open-source hack that feels like it should not work this well. Built in HTML + Rust. MIT License. 100% Open Source.

• 
  DR◎◎ (@DROOdotFOO) reported 11 minutes ago

  @pashov Respond to my GitHub issue and I’ll PR more testing improvements! REEEE

• 
  Devansh 💸 (@BhushanDevansh) reported 16 minutes ago

  is Github down?

• 
  FHILY👑 (@Oluwaphilemon1) reported 19 minutes ago

  Theo Browne, ex-Twitch engineer, broke down exactly which Claude model to use and when. Sonnet 3.5 for daily tool-calling and quick fixes. Opus 4.5 for multi-hour feature work without losing context. Mythos 5 for orchestration that spawns its own agents, splits tasks, and verifies results without any custom infrastructure. He replaced his entire PR review pipeline with a single markdown file on a cron schedule. It triages GitHub PRs, prioritizes the work, and drops a report on his desk by 9:15 AM every day. That is a loop running unattended. No dashboard, no framework, just a file and a schedule. This article breaks down exactly how to build that kind of system yourself.

• 
  Sadik (@sadik_0x) reported 22 minutes ago

  Someone Built a 50-Agent AI Company in One Repo. Most People Will Copy the Wrong Part. A solo founder put a GitHub repo online that spins up an entire AI agency. Not one assistant. An org chart: engineers, designers, growth marketers, product managers, QA, legal, sales, each running as its own Claude Code agent, coordinating to ship actual work. It hit 128,000-plus stars in under 90 days. One person built it. That number alone tells you something in this space is starving for a better mental model than "one agent, one giant prompt." The repo is real and the structure is worth understanding in detail, because the part everyone is about to copy (the org chart) isn't the part that makes it work. Part 1: What the Repo Actually Is The project is called agency-agents, built by developer msitarzewski, and it's structured exactly like the name suggests: a company, not a chatbot. Instead of one model trying to hold "design this, build it, market it, support it" in a single context window, the work is split across more than 50 specialized agents, each scoped to one job the way an actual employee would be. That framing is the interesting part before you even look at the department list. Most people building with AI agents default to the monolith approach: one system prompt, one agent, every responsibility crammed into the same context. It works for small tasks and falls apart the moment the work needs different kinds of judgment at different stages. A designer and a QA engineer are not the same job. Forcing one agent to be both, badly, is how you get output that's mediocre at everything instead of good at one thing. Part 2: The Nine Departments Here's the actual org chart, broken into its nine groups: 1. Engineering (7 agents) frontend, backend, mobile, AI, DevOps, prototyping, senior development. This is the core build layer, the part most people think of first when they hear "AI agents write code." 2. Design (7 agents) UI/UX, research, architecture, branding, visual storytelling, image generation. Notably, this isn't just "make it look nice." Research and architecture sit inside design here, which matters, because good design decisions upstream save engineering agents from rebuilding things twice. 3. Marketing (8 agents) growth hacking, content, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Reddit, app store. The largest single department, split by platform rather than by function, which mirrors how real growth teams are actually staffed once a product has more than one channel. 4. Product (3 agents) sprint prioritization, trend research, feedback synthesis. The smallest department, and arguably the most load-bearing, since this is the layer that decides what the other departments should even be working on. 5. Project Management (5 agents) production, coordination, operations, experimentation. This is the connective tissue between departments, not a department that produces its own output. 6. Testing (7 agents) QA, performance analysis, API testing, quality verification. Note that this is a separate department from engineering entirely, not a step engineering does to itself. 7. Support (6 agents) customer service, analytics, finance, legal, executive reporting. The department most demo repos skip, and the one that determines whether this can run as an actual business instead of a build pipeline. 8. Spatial Computing (6 agents) XR, visionOS, WebXR, Metal, Vision Pro. A genuinely niche department, and a signal that the repo's author is building for a specific bet on where interfaces are headed, not just a general-purpose team. 9. Specialized (6 agents) multi-agent orchestration, data analytics, sales, distribution. The department that manages the other departments, which is worth remembering when you get to Part 4. Nine departments, over 50 agents, one repository, one founder maintaining it. Part 3: Why the Framing Works The instinct to structure this like a company instead of a single super-agent is the right one, and it's worth being explicit about why. Specialized roles with clear responsibilities scale in a way that one enormous system prompt does not. When a frontend agent only has to think like a frontend engineer, its output gets sharper, not because the underlying model changed, but because its context isn't fighting itself between five unrelated jobs. The handoff structure is the other half of it. Real companies don't route every decision through one person; they route work between roles with clear inputs and outputs. A design agent handing a spec to an engineering agent, which hands a build to a testing agent, mirrors how actual product teams function. That's a better default than the common alternative, where one agent is asked to design, build, and QA its own work in the same breath, which is the AI equivalent of no one checking your homework but you. Part 4: The Problem Nobody Mentions When They Share This Repo Here's what gets lost every time this kind of project goes viral: an org chart of agents is not the same thing as a working company. The default behavior of any of these agents, run individually, is the same as every other prompt-based interaction: you ask, it answers once, it stops. That's fine for a single request. It is not fine for a company, because a company doesn't ship once. It iterates, checks its own output, catches mistakes, and hands work downstream without someone standing over every single step. Fifty specialized agents with no feedback mechanism between them isn't an agency. It's a very expensive to-do list, dressed up as an org chart. You still have to manually trigger each agent, manually check its output, manually decide when to pass it to the next one. All the department structure in Part 2 buys you better-scoped output per agent. It does not, by itself, buy you a system that runs without you standing in the middle of every handoff. Part 5: The Missing Piece Is Loops The fix is the same concept that makes any multi-agent system actually function unattended: loops. A loop, in this context, means an agent runs, checks its own output against a real condition (not its own opinion of whether it's done), and either hands the verified result to the next agent in the chain or corrects itself and tries again. Without that check, "coordination between agents" is just you copy-pasting output from one chat into another, which is not meaningfully different from doing the work yourself with extra steps. This is what separates a demo from something that ships. A design agent that hands off a spec nobody verified is a liability, not a coordination win. A testing agent that only runs once and reports "looks good" without a real pass/fail check is not quality assurance, it's a guess with better formatting. The department that matters most here, and the one buried at the bottom of the org chart in Part 2, is Specialized: multi-agent orchestration. That's the layer actually responsible for making sure work moves between departments with a real check at each handoff, not just a polite one-way pass. Part 6: How to Actually Set This Up If you're cloning the repo, don't start by installing all nine departments at once. Start smaller: Pick two departments that actually depend on each other for your use case engineering and testing is a reasonable first pair, since the handoff (build, then verify) has an obvious objective check: does the code pass its tests. Add a real verifier between them, not a second opinion from the same agent. The engineering agent should not be the one that decides its own code is done. A separate testing agent, with its own instructions and no visibility into the builder's reasoning, checks it cold. Give every handoff a stopping condition. "Pass the tests" is checkable. "Looks finished" is not. If a department can't define what done means in a way something other than the agent itself can verify, that handoff isn't ready to run unattended yet. Add one more department only after the first pair is reliable. The org chart in Part 2 has nine departments for a reason, but running all of them before you've proven the loop works between two is how you end up debugging fifty agents at once instead of two. A Quick Test Before You Commit Before you wire up the full org chart, ask whether your use case genuinely needs it. If you're shipping a single feature with one clear success condition, a two-agent loop (builder and checker) does the job with a fraction of the setup. The full nine-department structure earns its complexity when you're running something closer to an actual ongoing product, not a one-off build. The Honest Limitation None of this replaces judgment about what should be automated in the first place. A company with fifty employees and no manager checking the actual quality of what ships is still a company that ships bad work, just faster and with better org-chart optics. The repo gives you the roles. It doesn't give you the discipline of a real check at every handoff. That part is still yours to build. Where This Leaves You The repo is worth cloning, the department structure is worth studying, and the instinct to build like a company instead of one giant agent is the right one. Just don't stop at the org chart. The 128,000 stars are proof people want this. Whether it actually functions as an agency instead of a very well-organized to-do list depends entirely on whether you wire up the loops between departments, or just admire the department list and call it done.

• 
  Way Too Fast (@waytoofastfr) reported 27 minutes ago

  @github your platform is dogshit asw please fix it

• 
  Bonkle K. 🌠🪲 (@MiladyBonkle) reported 30 minutes ago

  @grifterlouie codex, add to milxdy github issues "olive-green windows xp visual style preset" slate for 0.2.4 release

• 
  Mona | web3 builder & artist (@mona73337) reported 31 minutes ago

  7 ways to make real money online: 1) Specialize Hard: Pick 1 skill, create 3 amazing samples, and pitch clients directly instead of fighting for cheap gigs on Fiverr or Upwork. 2) Post valuable crypto content consistently: Earn through advisory roles, grants and airdrops long before sponsorship revenue arrives. 3) Build a simple tool that fixes one annoying problem: Charge a small monthly fee to your first hundred users and so on..skip the investor chase phase. 4) Let your Github projects replace your CV: Land remote contracts with global startups and get paid in stablecoins to dodge international banking stress. 5) Use Mathematics to spot wrong odds on prediction markets: Risk only 1-2% per trade and treat it as a numbers game, NOT gambling. 6) Sell digital templates online: Build once, sell forever, with almost zero cost for each new customer. 7) Connect what your country has (Nigeria) in my case, to what the world wants: Buy or source locally, sell globally, and keep the difference.

• 
  StonedModder (@StonedModder) reported 33 minutes ago

  @TaharAzzouz @Jdr8245Jhon I’m working on a generic dumper that will make it easier for others to add support if you share the dump to github issues No eta

• 
  Ned17Flanders BIP-110 Knotzi (@Ned17Flanders) reported 39 minutes ago

  @Scavacini777 They've blocked us all and muted the conversations. They think BIP-110 is censorship but they block all convo on github, reddit, etc. Call us names and try and use confusing terminology and lean into heuristics to make themselves sound smarter than regular people. Coredevs are the problem. V30 is malware. Run Knots and BIP-110 God Save Bitcoin GodWins

• 
  Keeta Github Tracker (@KeetaCode) reported 39 minutes ago

  🐆 Keeta GitHub PR Merged 📦 Repo: anchor 🔀 PR #388: fix history group without enrichment 🌿 Branch: fix/history-enrich → fix/atomic-swap-history 👤 Originally opened by: @lucasrosa90 🧠 Overview: This update appears to fix how the bot groups transaction history when extra lookup data is missing, which matters because it should help activity be tracked more consistently. The pull request is a draft with limited public detail, and it has no written description. Based on the title and commit messages, it also adjusts how transaction IDs are handled for both “enriched” and “not enriched” transactions, meaning records with and without added metadata should be treated more reliably. - This likely helps prevent some history items from being grouped incorrectly when full transaction details are unavailable. - “Enrichment” here seems to mean adding extra context or metadata to a transaction after it is first detected.

• 
  em (@NoemiTitarenco) reported 40 minutes ago

  Github UX is honestly terrible. Why do you merge PRs on the "conversation" tab but can't on the commits or files changed tabs.

• 
  Pawan Pandey (@BuildWithPawan) reported 40 minutes ago

  Then pick where it goes: log it as a row in a Google Sheet, save it to Drive, or create a GitHub Issue (with labels) and push it into a Project — or send it to more than one destination at once

• 
  BullBear.News (@bullbear_info) reported 43 minutes ago

  @github Unless you're announcing an AI that actually fixes my broken CI pipeline, I'll just watch the stream. 🤷

• 
  The AI Bench (@theaibenchai) reported 44 minutes ago

  @github @cassidoo Worktrees fix the real bottleneck with parallel agent sessions: no more stashing or context-switching branches just to let two AI runs work simultaneously without stepping on each other's files.

• 
  Gregor Tokarev (@gregortokarev) reported 44 minutes ago

  Github should do these things if it don't want to lose me and all future developers in the future: - keep SLA above 99.9% - faster clones and pushes - faster and chiper actions - cli that not sucks - moderation tools for issues and pull requests

• 
  Lewis Campbell (@LewisCTech) reported 44 minutes ago

  Github, Codeberg etc should have a place where you can just tell the devs how much you love their open source software. Once I made an issue just to say the software was great, and the dev said "thank you very much" then closed it with "wontfix" LOL

• 
  SYL Vexora- Jaron K Bragg (@JaronBragg) reported 48 minutes ago

  Thinking out loud: if a Three.js world is backed by Supabase, Vercel, and GitHub, then player feedback does not have to stay separate from development. A player could press an in-world feedback button. That writes to Supabase. A scheduled agent reads labeled feedback, turns it into issues or draft PRs, and approved changes get pushed back into the game/world. Feedback becomes part of the build loop, not just comments outside the game. Has anyone already wired this cleanly? I'm at max usage for Claude and codex and already spent $70 I can't check till Wednesday but I plan to! I've done things in pieces already it's just seeing it all together. If you do it please tell me!!

• 
  BullBear.News (@bullbear_info) reported 48 minutes ago

  @github Only if the keynote fixes my broken CI pipeline. 🤷

• 
  nark3d (@nark3d) reported 51 minutes ago

  @a_kucherenko We run jscpd in our GitHub Actions gates, thanks for building it. Agents will regenerate the same logic in a second file, and I'd assumed a clean report meant it wasn't happening. Splitting by language before comparing sounds a sensible fix.

• 
  Raft (@raft_hq) reported 52 minutes ago

  🐛 Fixed - Replies to Joint channel threads no longer drop when opened from Activity - Reminders anchored in Joint channel threads now resolve correctly - Pinned agent direct messages show the correct avatar - Pending mention prompts now show agent avatars - Mention-only messages stay correctly scoped to mention views instead of over-appearing in your inbox - Jumping to a saved or linked message now stays anchored on that message - Stale @ mention badges clear correctly once you have read the messages - Muted servers show the correct quiet unread badge in the server switcher - Right-clicking an external link now opens the native browser menu - Submitting a stale draft no longer risks an accidental double-send - Shared-channel messages now reliably appear in every member's inbox - Tapping an item in Activity on mobile web now opens it on the first tap - Links to a thread now open the conversation instead of a "not found" error - Task status now updates live inside DM threads - An agent's online and working status no longer flips inconsistently across servers - The GitHub logo no longer appears clipped on connected-account and social-login buttons

• 
  Adam Warski (@adamwarski) reported 53 minutes ago

  Should code reviews still be a separate stage in the software development process? Code reviews used to be heavyweight: they required involving another human, which is an expensive and slow process. But when agents review the code of other agents (or humans), that's no longer the case. It's trivial to run code reviews on-demand, multiple times, until all the problems are fixed. Hence, can code reviews become just another quality gate in software development, alongside compilers, linters, and static analysis tools like Sonar? That's definitely my experience. I always self-reviewed code before handing it over for further review, so the agentic review loop resembles that. But now, we can review using "fresh" agents or completely different models. So for me, code review used to be an end-of-the-line process, a final quality check. Now it's just a part of the iteration. Which also brings the question: do we need specialized code review systems? Or is a refined prompt, or a lightweight CLI tool enough? (As a side note: code reviews have always been close to my heart; one of our first (failed) startups was CodeBrag - a per-commit code-review tool. Some of the ideas were implemented on GitHub later, so, as always, we've been ahead of our time! ;) )

• 
  Shivaansh Pandey (@ShivaanshP0610) reported 56 minutes ago

  Stuck in a support dead-end with @github — account suspended with no explanation, and every appeal channel (web form, email, mobile app) is returning errors or bouncing. Would appreciate help getting this looked at by a human. #GitHubSupport

• 
  James Tucker (@raggi) reported 57 minutes ago

  Only type a little on a github issue: "he's being short and rude" Type a reasonable amount on a github issue: "he's pasting AI responses into the issue" AI may soon break my ability to collaborate on GitHub by side effect

• 
  NZΛKI (@NzakiCodes) reported 57 minutes ago

  @pxxl_space @honour_can_code @whakee_ I can't login with GitHub

• 
  Crypto.Anu🐍 (@CryptoAnu_) reported 59 minutes ago

  2/ For years, coding looked like this: ❌ Google ❌ Stack Overflow ❌ GitHub Issues ❌ Reddit ❌ Documentation ❌ Trial & error Hours... sometimes DAYS... Just to fix one bug.