1. Home
  2. Companies
  3. GitHub
  4. Outage Map
GitHub

GitHub Outage Map

The map below depicts the most recent cities worldwide where GitHub users have reported problems and outages. If you are having an issue with GitHub, make sure to submit a report below

Loading map, please wait...

The heatmap above shows where the most recent user-submitted and social media reports are geographically clustered. The density of these reports is depicted by the color scale as shown below.

GitHub users affected:

Less
More
Check Current Status

GitHub is a company that provides hosting for software development and version control using Git. It offers the distributed version control and source code management functionality of Git, plus its own features.

Most Affected Locations

Outage reports and issues in the past 15 days originated from:

Location Reports
Créteil, Île-de-France 1
Trichūr, KL 1
Brasília, DF 2
Lyon, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv 1
Rive-de-Gier, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 1
Itapema, SC 1
Cleveland, TN 1
Tlalpan, CDMX 1
Quilmes, BA 1
Bengaluru, KA 1
Yokohama, Kanagawa 1
Gustavo Adolfo Madero, CDMX 1
Nice, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 1
Montataire, Hauts-de-France 1
Colima, COL 1
Check Current Status

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:

  • andrewmccalip
    Andrew McCalip (@andrewmccalip) reported

    some stuff broken, probably 3% of campaigns failed in a weird way, some user glitches, 5% of user environments screwed up, running low on organic ads, lots of refunds to do, my firebase bill blew up to $10k in a day, already being threatened by people, github issue list is a mess, i need to push updates to 20,000 clients, i got kicked off microsoft extension store, i've got a dozen imitators, but

  • richkuo7
    Rich Kuo (@richkuo7) reported

    i use this in my claude.md for my open source project as long as the agent follows it, i have some reference for quality and keeps PR's clean LLM: <model> | <effort> | Harness: <action> - Final line of the artifact; occupies the default Claude Code attribution slot. - No Co-authored-by / Co-Authored-By trailer. - <model>: actual model (e.g. Opus 4.8). - <effort>: medium/high/xhigh, default high. - <action>: Claude Code for interactive sessions, else the skill/agent that ran (e.g. commit-push-pr, agent). - PRs: reference the issue with Closes #<N>; in GitHub comments use 1. not #N for list items (avoids auto-linking).

  • aisama_code
    aisama.code (@aisama_code) reported

    AI Research gets stronger when it records contradictions *most research workflows collect supporting evidence - that is the weak version for serious research I want a contradiction log: - claim - source - date - who says it - what evidence supports it - what evidence conflicts with it - what is still unknown - confidence - next check example: > claim: this product has strong developer adoption > support: GitHub activity, docs updates, X discussion, integrations > conflict: low issue activity, small Discord, few production case studies, mostly founder-driven content now the memo is different, It says: "visible attention, but adoption evidence is still weak" the useful workflow: research question -> source list -> claim extraction -> contradiction log -> memo ! сode is good at assembling text ! AI is good at comparing disparate text ! human is good at determining which contradictions are significant *without a contradiction log, AI research becomes a confident summary of whatever it found first

  • selectsand
    Poplicola (@selectsand) reported

    there's a frustrating bug for some users when upgrading to claude max where it refuses to take your money and insists you contact support support cannot be reached no matter how hard you try people are begging the claude-code devs on github to forward this to the payments interface team because they have no idea how else to get into the system to convince anthropic to take more money from them, the issues just get closed as off topic @claudeai

  • noxiepup
    𝑵𝒐𝒙𝒊𝒆 🥐 (@noxiepup) reported

    @softgaypaws @sillyandsunny no idea tbhhh, i found it like 2 years ago lurking thru github, so far it never gave me problems, at least none that i noticed

  • br11k_dev
    Nikolay Konovalov (@br11k_dev) reported

    @Tristanrhee3 And GitHub sponsors thingy is so slow I submitted it like a week ago. Still not approved what the hell My expenses arent terribly high but Warsaw rent is like $2k/mo $500 ZUS $1.5k groceries for two people That’s pretty much it I wish I could move into low cost area but moving out is gonna cost a lot because 2x rent price deposit, so I have to suck it up Anyway, my plan is Upwork and finishing my job tracker so I can send faster than 5 applications a day. I refuse to send out 100 applications per day like some people do spray and pay It makes everyone miserable. If people aren’t hiring your spam doesnt make things better You just mopping floors and hiring problem sits above you, 3 floors up there leaky faucet you can’t even reach This has to be collective effort to fix this problem But we have to start with ourselves and stop spamming applications at least And do genuine company research, being responsible Thanks for reading.

  • Steve1885204
    Steve (@Steve1885204) reported

    @Umesh__digital It puts GitHub into an infinite loop trying to resolve the recursive paradox, causing all the servers to max out and eventually burn down the entire data centre

  • kssreeram
    KS Sreeram (@kssreeram) reported

    @Lidinwise @leecronin Given that AI coding is all the rage… What is your hypothesis on why the following is true? AI is unable to create even _one_ open source project that’s good enough to enter the top one-thousand open source projects (say on github), with ZERO involvement of humans from birth of idea. Imagine the prompt being something like “Come up with a great idea for a new open source project and implement it”. AI is unable to do any such thing with zero human involvement. My answer on why: Every project in a top 1000 list is a hit. Every hit is a mini-invention of sorts. It is necessarily “out of distribution” is some way. AI is unable to do this because we don’t know how to solve the problem of invention.

  • nirvaan_rohira
    Nirvaan rohira (@nirvaan_rohira) reported

    PewDiePie shipped Odysseus to 110 million people who don't care about local LLMs. They care that Claude costs money. 30K stars in 48 hours because every self-hosted project before this one started with "you want local LLM, right?" This one started with "here's a free workspace that works." Friction was never technical. It was the asking. Now watch what happens when a hundred thousand people who've never touched open source start running inference on their machines. The real distribution problem wasn't GitHub. It was YouTube. That's not a product launch. That's a category shift.

  • Timur_Yessenov
    Timur Yessenov (@Timur_Yessenov) reported

    @TheTuringPost OSINT is one place where I’d slow the agent down. The report matters less than the evidence log: source, why it pivoted, what it ruled out, which clue is weak. A fast chain over breach/IP/GitHub tools can look smart while laundering one bad hit.

  • rnagulapalle
    Raj Nagulapalle (@rnagulapalle) reported

    GitHub just shipped Agentic Workflows: write automation in plain markdown, compiles to Actions YAML. issue triage, CI failures, vuln fixes. hours → minutes. but 60% of orgs are spending millions on agentic AI while only 15% are actually production-ready. the capability gap closed fast. the readiness gap didn't move.

  • severeengineer
    severe engineer (@severeengineer) reported

    since github copilot onward leetcodes have become even more disconnected from how we all write code every day problem is any kind of standardized replacement probably ends up looking basically the same lol

  • JayTL00
    Jay.TL (@JayTL00) reported

    Three AI labs shipped the same feature within one hour today. That's not competition. That's a signal the unit of interaction just changed. For two years, the atomic unit of working with an AI agent was one prompt. You type. It responds. You type again. Every workflow was a chain of prompts, rebuilt from scratch each time. Today, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cursor all shipped features that only make sense if the unit is no longer the prompt. The unit is now one workflow. 1. OpenAI Codex Record & Replay (3,807 likes): Do a task once on your Mac. Codex watches. It turns your demonstration into an inspectable, editable skill you can reuse. Not a prompt. A recorded procedure. 2. Cursor /automate (1,085 likes): Describe what you want in plain language. Cursor configures the triggers, instructions, and tools automatically. Plus five new GitHub triggers and Computer Use enabled by default for cloud agents. 3. Anthropic Claude Code Artifacts (6,829 likes): Your coding session becomes an interactive, shareable page. PR walkthroughs, project dashboards, living documentation. Shared at a private link, like a Figma file but for agent work. Each one alone is a feature release. Together they describe the same shift from three different angles: the agent session is becoming a reusable, shareable, composable artifact. Read them as one move: - Input side (Codex): teach by showing, not by writing - Configuration side (Cursor): describe in language, system assembles the wiring - Output side (Anthropic): the result of a session is a shareable object, not a chat log The Karpathy framing was right — we're moving from prompt iteration to plan, execute, verify, loop. What he didn't name is that this loop needs to be portable. A workflow locked inside one chat thread is useless the moment you close the tab. But here's what most coverage missed. Codex Record & Replay requires Computer Use enabled. That means OpenAI is watching your screen while you demonstrate an enterprise workflow. The EU version is blocked at launch. That's not a regulatory footnote — the entire feature is built on continuous screen access, and the EU looked at it and said no. Which raises the question nobody is asking: who owns the recorded workflow? You demonstrated an expense-filing procedure that touches your company's internal tools. Codex turned it into a skill. Where does that skill live? Can OpenAI see it? Is it training data? The product copy says you control when recording starts and stops — but says nothing about what happens to the recording after. There's also a fragmentation problem hiding in plain sight. Three companies, three proprietary formats for the same primitive. A workflow you record in Codex doesn't run in Cursor. An artifact you build in Claude Code doesn't render in OpenAI's product. We're watching the agent-workflow layer fragment into three walled gardens before it even solidifies. This is the SaaS integration mistake repeated, except worse. SaaS integrations are wrappers around APIs. These workflows encode institutional knowledge — how your team ships code, how your finance team files reports, how your ops team handles incidents. That's not data. That's operational IP. The economic implication: every recorded workflow is switching cost. The more skills you build inside Codex, the harder it becomes to leave. The more automations you configure in Cursor, the more your team's muscle memory is locked to one editor. Anthropic's artifacts are softer — they're shareable — but they only render inside Anthropic's ecosystem. The deeper question isn't which feature is best. It's whether the agent-workflow layer will be open or closed. Today, three companies bet on closed. Nobody shipped an export button.

  • timoheimonen_
    timoheimonen (@timoheimonen_) reported

    Memos are encrypted and decrypted in browser, server never sees what they contain. No accounts. Anyone can create encrypted memo. Source code is available at GitHub.

  • asp_7171
    Prasanth (@asp_7171) reported

    @babayagatwt The missing step 5: Talking to the people requesting those features. Too many builders build what they think people want instead of validating first. GitHub issues are gold — but real conversations are platinum

Check Current Status