GitHub 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:

• 
  Gisleno "ESPARTACO" (@ESPARTACOleague) reported 2 minutes ago

  Watch out! Do NOT install right know its giving Trojan:Script/Wacatac.C!ml , + the real issue is this also "/* Fetch GitHub /releases/latest (no per-title version pin). */" No hash, signature, or pinned version check. Searched for sha256, checksum, verify, digest zero results.

• 
  Dheeraj Singh (@dheerajsingh894) reported 3 minutes ago

  Have anyone thought of implementing AI Bug Reproduction Agent which will be Reproducing GitHub issues automatically ? #BuildInPublic

• 
  Warunk Digital 🪙 💻 ⚡⚡️ ₿ (@warunk_digital) reported 5 minutes ago

  @vikrantnyc i checked sign in method still use email account or github, no sign in method with connect wallet

• 
  Jansen (@jan53n) reported 7 minutes ago

  Is github *** server access getting slow for you?

• 
  Khalid (@KhalidDevLog) reported 9 minutes ago

  @Ruimarcosjoao @expo Are you using an emulator or the Expo Go app? Note that PanelUI uses Expo SDK 57, so if you're using an older version, it might not work for you. Please create an issue in GitHub and tell me exactly what you're experiencing, including the type of emulator and whether you're using Android or iOS.

• 
  Duncan Rogoff (@DuncanRogoff) reported 14 minutes ago

  your last finished project is sitting in a folder doing nothing. i built a free Claude Code skill that fixes that. you type /case-study, tell it what you built and who for, and it interviews you properly. then it writes the whole thing up. the part i care about most: it will not invent a metric. not a rounded one, not an estimated one, not a plausible one. if you hand it a number you can't point to a source for, it asks where it came from and downgrades it to a plain description. what it actually does: - asks the questions one at a time, including the one everyone skips: what was the hardest part - ranks your evidence in order of preference, from a measured number down to a concrete before and after description - writes five short sections, readable in under 90 seconds - gives you two versions: a tight one around 150 words for a DM, and a longer one for LinkedIn or a portfolio page - saves it to ~/case-studies/ as a file you keep - checks permission before anything goes public, and hands you the exact line to send the client a paid client, a free favour, or your own project all work the same way. a prospect cares whether you can do the thing, not whether the last person paid. so instead of a portfolio full of screenshots with no story, you get something you can paste into a DM this week and have it actually land. it's free. copy the folder into your Claude Code skills directory, restart, type /case-study. 👉 github repo in the replies

• 
  Visionary x AI (@VisionaryxAI) reported 16 minutes ago

  I've been thinking about authentication for agents a lot lately. Right now every time we build an agent that needs to actually do something, we end up repeating the same flow. Connect Google. Connect GitHub. Connect X. Store OAuth tokens somewhere. Give the agent scopes and hope we've constrained things enough. It works. But I don't think this is how agent auth should work long term. What if there was just one broker between you, your accounts, and every agent you use? You set it up once. Connect Google, GitHub, X, YouTube, Slack, etc. to the broker. Then define what you're comfortable with: Google Drive → read automatically Calendar → read/write Email → ask before sending GitHub → ask before merging X → ask before posting Delete anything → never Now an agent doesn't need access to my Google account. It just tells the broker: I want to send this email to this person. The broker already knows whether that action is allowed. If it needs approval, I get a request on my phone. Approve with Face ID/passkey/OTP. The broker executes it or gives the agent a tiny capability that exists only for that action and expires immediately after. That's it. The part I really like is that the agent becomes almost irrelevant to the trust model. I could be using Codex today, Claude Code tomorrow, some open-source agent locally next week. I shouldn't have to keep giving each of them access to my digital life. They should all speak to the same permission layer. And that layer should know: who is asking what they want to do which resource they want to touch whether I've already allowed it whether I need to approve it and exactly how long that permission should exist Basically: Agents ask. The broker decides. I approve when necessary. The service credentials never leave the broker. OAuth solved "can this app access my account?" I think agents create a slightly different problem: "Can this agent do this one thing for me, right now?" As agents start moving from answering questions to actually operating software for us, I think this distinction is going to matter a lot. Maybe the missing primitive isn't another agent framework. Maybe it's a permission layer for all of them. I'm thinking about building an open-source version of this and seeing how far the model can actually go. If this is a problem you've been thinking about too, or you'd want to contribute, build integrations, poke holes in the architecture, or partner on it, I'd love to talk.

• 
  Damian (@afkfounder) reported 19 minutes ago

  @Prathkum the issue wouldn't be the build, it would be gaining a reputation that could shake github

• 
  Abdullah | Building SaaS in Public (@abdullahships) reported 19 minutes ago

  @ajeetsraina That's the real gap then. A per-request allowlist checks the domain, not the intent behind the request. If the agent gets convinced through something it read to open an issue or push to a repo that isn't the one you're working in, GitHub being allowlisted doesn't stop that. Does the checkpoint scope by domain only, or does it also constrain which repos or paths within an allowed domain?

• 
  Sarthak Rawool (@sarthakcore) reported 22 minutes ago

  @celineodier i built MCP into my form builder at 16 with zero docs. the orchestration section alone in this guide is worth the full 37 minutes. would've saved me two weeks of reading github issues.

• 
  Dariusz (@die54minute) reported 25 minutes ago

  The purpose of Github Copilot's PR review and discussion is to have a discussion in the comment field. This is not working when a new ask is coming back from the agent. How do I tell it the agent without going into the session. It doesn't pick up a reply.

• 
  Paulo (@pauloportella_) reported 30 minutes ago

  @SEDIDEL Not I have rolled back to the last working version and have a Luna agent checking the GitHub issue for when it’s resolved

• 
  InvisibleBuilders (@InvisibleBui) reported 32 minutes ago

  @SimpleXChat @Synchro2050 @epoberezkin Calling the original statement “nonsense” and labeling it FUD does not make the commercial reality disappear. You are correct on the narrow legal point: according to public statements and the UK Companies House record, Evgeny Poberezkin remains the controlling owner (75%+ of SimpleX Chat Ltd) and CEO, and the VCs (Village Global, Asymmetric, Jack Dorsey) hold no board seats and have no formal control provisions. That part is accurate. However: The company has repeatedly taken venture capital and is now running equity crowdfunding on Wefunder so that investors (including the existing VCs and new ones) get a stake in the for-profit entity. Even a “very small non-controlling stake” still creates an expectation of financial returns and growth. That incentive structure is real, regardless of formal board seats. SimpleX Chat remains a commercial company whose business model includes commercialization of the protocol, public names, infrastructure payments, and raising outside capital. The Foundation is secondary and still includes the commercial founder on its board. This is not the same as a pure non-profit or community-owned project free of investor pressure. Pointing to an SEC filing that shows minority stakes does not erase the fact that the project is funded by and accountable to investors who expect the company to become valuable. That is the core distinction many critics are making — not a claim that VCs literally sit in the CEO chair. On the GitHub side: responsible private disclosure of security issues is standard practice, and premature public posting can indeed help attackers. That does not turn every factual observation about ownership, funding, or structure into “FUD.” The pattern of dismissing structural criticism as FUD while simultaneously soliciting more investment is what draws attention. Founder control + minority VC stakes + ongoing equity raises is still a commercial model. Acknowledging the legal details does not change the incentive reality.

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 33 minutes ago

  Teams too small to afford an SRE still get paged at 3 a.m. So I built Reprovex — an AI on-call that watches logs, replays failures in a sandbox, and files a GitHub issue with a runnable repro before paging anyone. Engineer wakes up to a reproducer, not a riddle.

• 
  Ahmad Hajjar - ***-quick.dev (@ashajjar85) reported 34 minutes ago

  GitQuick Signals - Showcase #01 - @vercel One interesting finding: About 82% of the currently open PRs in the key-branch view have seen no review activity for 72+ hours. At the same time, PRs that *do* enter review get their first review in a median of just 57 minutes. What I think might be happening? This doesn’t look primarily like a general review-speed problem. It could indicate two populations: PRs that enter the active review flow and move reasonably quickly, and another group that sits outside that flow for much longer. The fact that the overall metrics have stayed relatively stable across recent runs makes me even more interested in that stale population. What I would try? I wouldn’t optimize the 57-minute median first. I’d segment those stale PRs by repository, branch, ownership, contributor, age and PR size and ask: What distinguishes the PRs that get picked up from the ones that don’t? This is an interpretation of public GitHub metadata, not a claim of knowledge of Vercel’s internal process. I could be missing important context. Check this Public showcase and other cases at GitQuick's website GitQuick can go considerably deeper once you connect your organisation.