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:

• 
  Abdulfatai | Blockradar (@iamnotstatic) reported 3 minutes ago

  @snowthetechie @judicodes works with any *** server, or none at all. tracking is just local *** commands, it never talks to a host. github is only the sign-in for the optional leaderboard. private gitlab / gitea / bare ssh remotes all fine

• 
  Jacob's Lattice (@JacobsLattice) reported 3 minutes ago

  @RichSilver My limits were really high last week, this week not so much. I think two things might be true: - Limits for Grok Bot have been lowered this week - There is an issue with at least one of the plugins. I had to disable the GitHub plugin because a bot was churning on a task that wasn't possible via the plugin but was via the CLI, yet somehow it kept trying via the plugin and chewed through my usage in no time. I suspect there may be issues with other plugins too.

• 
  mbriggs (@mbriggs_dev) reported 4 minutes ago

  @ncfrontiersman @grok @dhh The issue I was referring to specifically here was omarchy plugins are arbitrary code on github repos that run unsandboxed on your machine. I think they have some plans around that, but I think realistically i would want to code audit anything i installed, and pin to a revision

• 
  Theo - t3.gg (@theo) reported 4 minutes ago

  I think we’ll quickly hit some kind of balance here where software goes into a few buckets: 1. AI-powered human interfaces (Codex, T3 Code, Claude Cowork) 2. programmatic interfaces (anything with a good MCP, CLI, or agent ready APIs) 3. legacy human interfaces (apps like Excel, Gmail, Photoshop) Investor world seems to think everything will become category 2. Anyone who’s tried to use one of these awful bridges knows that will never happen. I can’t even automate my GitHub usage without hitting endless rate limits 🙃 Category 1 is getting saturated fast with chat interfaces. Category 3 is fighting to pretend they still matter by baking awful agents into their products. I think Category 2 is the best place to fight right now, but you have to do it without pretending you can just staple a slow, rate limited API onto some existing software. I think @pierrecomputer is the best example right now. It seems like fixing GitHub to handle the unique needs and load from agents isn’t viable, and they built something tailor made for the needs of agents.

• 
  Andrew Gömez (@red_darkin) reported 7 minutes ago

  @Cyberadp Hi bro, i used opus 4.9 Related to the prompt i didn’t use an spwcific prompt i struggled for 2 hours trying to guide Claude for the correct path. But the initially prompt was “build a functional PoC based on this document” the document was the github issue about this CVE

• 
  Evan Moore (@OhioScientist) reported 10 minutes ago

  @brycent I hire from mailing lists & github issues

• 
  U Cirello (@ucirello) reported 12 minutes ago

  OK - @thdxr - I am digging opencode@beta aka v2. Few small problems, sending them in Github... looks good. The other you streamed adding the goal feature to v2, I am excited for that one.

• 
  Gaurang Karia (@GaurangKaria) reported 14 minutes ago

  @poteto - Testing out Grok bot. The GitHub connector seems to have issues. Is the best way to go through the bot computer to login. Felt a bit disconnected in being able to manage *** repos from a bot. Is this a known issue?

• 
  Leander (@leanderriefel) reported 15 minutes ago

  @TheAlexLichter oh yes yes 100%, it just created 2 issues via my github cli and I only noticed a couple hours afterwards that they were just stale installs and I became very embarrassed, changed the permissions now a bit hahah

• 
  🪔 Shruti VTuber EN/GR (@ShrutiVTuber) reported 18 minutes ago

  @Taniyatweets_ **** no! Everything still goes through a PR on my github and I review that stuff just like if I was reviewing a coworkers submission on the job. Years of being a PM have broken me...I speak diff fluently hahahaha

• 
  Livsun (@L1vsun) reported 19 minutes ago

  setup hedge funds use to cover 3,000 names a night just got replicated for $200 a month six Grok Bot Agents, six lanes, one brief sitting in your inbox at 5:30am before any human is awake what that desk costs at a real firm: > bloomberg terminal: $27k a year > two junior analysts on overnight coverage: $160k > research platform licenses: $85k > compliance overhead: $40k total: $312,000 a year. Grok Bot swarm running same desk: $2,400 Check Prompt on my Github in Bio each agent gets its own cloud computer, its own browser, its own logins - and they all write into the same vault: > FILINGS reads every 10-K on a 100-ticker watchlist overnight, flags going concern language and auditor changes > EARNINGS reads the call transcript within 24 hours and catches when CFO went quieter than last quarter > INSIDER catches Form 4 buys over $1M same day 13Fs land > FLOW reads sweeps and 0dte pressure before open > MACRO covers asia handover so you don't have to be awake for it > CHIEF reads the other five at 5:30am, drops anything only one flagged, emails ranked brief at 6 no vps, no code. show it the job once while it watches - it never asks you again morning brief is waiting. you're not in it Wall Street priced an entire industry on reading being slow and people being expensive both of those stopped being true this month save this - every research floor still running junior analysts on overnight filings is about to have a very bad quarter

• 
  Hasan Pawar (@PawarHasan) reported 19 minutes ago

  @0x1Rosy @Anek_mmxm Bro please reply, I am unable to open exe file and also, if the app is not working, I am unable to access the github link, please share the link also

• 
  neunzehn (@toorox) reported 21 minutes ago

  @suni_code Cursor is great an much better than Claude or Codex but there is one point that’s a nogo: binding to GitHub for cloud agents. As long as this is not fixed cursor is not an option for secure coding. Elon pls fix it and allow to work on code with cloud agents without relying on Microsoft.

• 
  Pawan (@Pawan2001564157) reported 25 minutes ago

  The Problem With Autonomous Agents Isn't What They Can Do. It's What They Need Access To. I've been thinking about something that feels very familiar to anyone who's worked with software for a long time. Give a program too much access, and eventually you spend more time worrying about what it could do than what it actually needs to do. AI agents make that problem much bigger. Because now the software can reason about its own next step. What Happens When An Agent Hits A Wall? Imagine you're running a coding agent overnight. You give it a simple goal: Monitor checkout health ↓ Find failures ↓ Open a GitHub issue The agent gets halfway through and realizes: "I don't have a way to monitor the endpoint." There are two ways you could handle that. The old way Give it broader machine access. Install another plugin. Restart the environment. Configure everything manually. And hope the permissions aren't wider than necessary. The Unicity AOS way The agent can recognize the missing capability and build an isolated extension for it. Then: Missing ability ↓ Build extension ↓ Declare required access ↓ Show permissions ↓ Human approval ↓ Install ↓ Continue That's the part of Unicity AOS I find genuinely interesting. The agent doesn't need the keys to the machine just because it needs one new ability. (Unicity AOS) This Changes What "Autonomous" Can Mean I've always thought there was a strange contradiction in autonomous software. We want the agent to be capable of figuring things out. But then we give it a fixed toolbox because giving it unrestricted access is obviously a bad idea. So we're left with: More capability ↕ More risk Unicity AOS is exploring a third direction: More capability + Narrow permissions + Runtime isolation ↓ Controlled autonomy That feels much closer to what autonomous software should actually look like. The Interesting Part Is The Extension Itself Unicity AOS uses isolated WebAssembly capsules for new abilities. The capsule declares what it needs such as particular files, networks, tools or secrets and the ability isn't installed until the required access is approved. So the unit of trust isn't: "Do I trust this entire agent?" It's closer to: "Do I approve this specific capability with these specific permissions?" That's a much smaller question. And smaller security questions are usually easier to reason about. Think About A Developer's Normal Day You don't want your coding agent to have unrestricted access to: every file every network every secret every service every credential just because it might need one of them eventually. But you also don't want to manually configure a new environment every time the agent discovers a new requirement. That's the tension. Unicity AOS tries to sit directly in that middle ground. Developer │ ▼ Goal │ ▼ Agent │ ▼ "Something is missing" │ ▼ Unicity AOS │ ├── What does it need? ├── What will it access? └── What permissions are required? │ ▼ Approval │ ▼ Isolated Capsule The workflow keeps moving without turning the machine into an open sandbox. And I Think This Is Where The OS Part Matters If this were simply a plugin system, the interesting part would mostly be installation. But Unicity AOS puts the extension inside the runtime. The AOS site describes each ability as a capsule, with the runtime handling its isolation and capability permissions. The same site also exposes the actual astrid-kernel WebAssembly runtime in the browser rather than using a simulated security demo. That's important. Because the boundary isn't just a diagram explaining what should happen. The runtime is responsible for enforcing it. The Agent Can Grow Without Getting Everything This is probably my favorite way to think about it. AGENT │ ▼ "I need X" │ ▼ Build capability │ ▼ Declare permissions │ ▼ APPROVAL │ ▼ Isolated execution The agent becomes more capable. But capability doesn't automatically mean unrestricted authority. That's a subtle distinction. And I think it will become increasingly important as agents start doing more than writing text or code. A Real-World Analogy Think about giving a new employee access to a company. You wouldn't normally say: "Here's every key to every room. Figure it out." You'd give them access to the systems required for their role. Then, if their responsibilities change, you'd review what additional access they need. The important thing isn't stopping them from working. It's making sure access grows deliberately. Unicity AOS applies a similar philosophy to software capabilities. What I Like Most: No Fixed Toolbox There's another subtle idea here that I think developers will appreciate. A fixed toolbox limits what an agent can accomplish. An unrestricted toolbox creates obvious security problems. Unicity AOS introduces a different possibility: A runtime where the agent can extend its abilities while the boundary remains explicit. That means the agent isn't forced to know every possible capability on day one. And the developer doesn't have to surrender the entire machine just in case. The Model Can Change. The Boundary Doesn't Have To. Unicity AOS currently supports coding agents including Claude Code, Grok Build and Codex, while keeping the operating environment underneath them consistent. I think that's an important architectural choice. Models will keep changing. Providers will change. Agent harnesses will change. But the security boundary shouldn't have to be rewritten every time a new model becomes popular. Claude ──┐ Grok ────┼──► Unicity AOS Codex ───┘ │ ▼ Same runtime boundary That's a much more durable approach. The Bigger Unicity Idea The more I look at Unicity AOS, the more I think its interesting question isn't: "How do we give agents more tools?" It's: "How do we let agents become more capable without making the environment less trustworthy?" That's a much harder problem. And, honestly, I think it's the more important one. Because eventually we're going to have agents that don't just answer questions. They'll operate systems. They'll maintain infrastructure. They'll interact with APIs. They'll manage workflows. They'll create software. And they'll inevitably encounter situations their original toolbox didn't anticipate. Final Thoughts I don't think the future of agents is going to be: "Give every agent unrestricted access and hope the model behaves." That doesn't scale. I also don't think it should be: "Lock the agent into a tiny fixed toolbox forever." That doesn't scale either. The interesting middle ground is what Unicity AOS is building toward: Agent ↓ Discovers what it needs ↓ Builds a capability ↓ Declares its access ↓ Gets approval ↓ Runs inside isolation ↓ Keeps working More autonomy without blindly expanding authority. That's the part of Unicity AOS I think developers should pay attention to. Because the real challenge isn't teaching agents to do more. It's giving them room to do more without giving them everything. @unicity_labs @mgault @pgrigorenko 🟧

• 
  Gerred Dillon (@sloppenheimer) reported 31 minutes ago

  @ajambrosino this is my biggest complaint. i've had to fix so many unverified commits because it's not available to the sandbox, or gh shows as unauthenticated. it'll even open Chrome to browse authenticated github instead of just...checking the sandboxing?!