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:

• 
  Abdallah Shaban (@AbdallahSh07) reported 53 seconds ago

  @rashed_sahaji @FlutterDev Got it - did you perhaps submit a GitHub issue to help us triage this? It would be tremendously helpful if you can please do that!

• 
  Bearded Printer (@BeardedPrinter) reported 2 minutes ago

  @RedPill_Phil You've gotta go to their github and submit an issue. Make sure to search their issues to ensure you don't submit a duplicate bug

• 
  Enfantshustle (@Ownerthoughts) reported 8 minutes ago

  Honestly, I always thought bots like this were some kind of magic for the elite, but here everything is broken down step by step. However, after reading it, one main question stuck in my head: how realistic is this for an average person who has no coding experience? I get that there's a GitHub and all that, but for me, just "running a script" is practically a heroic feat. Here's another thing that bothers me. The article does a great job explaining the architecture, but I still don't understand how much all of this will actually cost in the end. Besides Solana transaction fees (which, by the way, get absolutely insane during peak hours), you also have to pay for each Grok API call per token. The article says that for each approved token, it takes three model calls, and one of them is the expensive grok-4. If the bot scans thousands of launches per day, I'll just burn through my entire deposit just paying for the API without even buying anything. Maybe the author knows — is it actually possible to turn a profit after these expenses, or is this just a hobby for those with an unlimited subscription? Also, regarding Grok Bot as the "orchestrator" — it sounds cool in theory: describe the task and it does everything itself. But in practice, as I understand it, this still requires your account to be constantly online and have access to your wallet. And if it decides to buy some scam token at 3 AM that passed all the checks, I'll only have myself to blame. The article correctly mentions risk management, but this "trust" aspect is what scares me the most. In short, the idea is fire, but for me, this post feels more like a warning than a call to action. There are just too many things you have to keep in mind to avoid getting rekt. Although, maybe if you try it with really tiny amounts, it could be an interesting experiment. Author, if you're reading this — could you please make a separate post about the real, live results once everything is actually running, not just on paper? I'm really curious!

• 
  tobarra (@txbrraa) reported 10 minutes ago

  GitHub just fixed the biggest problem with vibe coding. They just released Spec Kit and it already has +126K stars in a short time. The idea? Instead of throwing out vague prompts and praying the agent doesn't break your project… Spec Kit forces the AI to create a structured specification BEFORE touching any code. The AI first understands what you want to build, asks about anything missing, organizes the project, and only then starts coding. That means less time fixing absurd bugs, less inconsistent code, and much more predictable results when working with agents. The flow is simple: /constitution → rules and standards /specify → what you want to build /clarify → open questions before starting /plan → architecture and stack /tasks → ordered tasks /implement → execution Compatible with Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, Codex, Gemini CLI, and +25 agents. 95K stars. 8K forks. Open source. Published by GitHub.

• 
  Lummox (@Lummox_eth) reported 10 minutes ago

  My own built Grok Bot turned $1,000 into $5,300 for last 17 hours. Now the project behind it is sitting around $25K market cap. We already pushed past $60K once and gonna hit $200k soon The bot is still running. The utility is almost ready. GitHub is live. Dev tokens are burned. I’m still buying. Nothing about the actual project changed because the chart went down. At $20K MC, this is the entry I personally like far more than chasing the first move. The target hasn’t changed either. $100K+ is where I want to take this next. $LUM is just getting started.

• 
  Kahris (@chrissotraidis) reported 11 minutes ago

  @NickogSo I haven't tested on LiveContainer. Feel free to submit logs via GitHub issues and I'll check it out. I haven't had any other reports of that happening for either build.

• 
  Ash Lonare (@ashlonare) reported 11 minutes ago

  What actually happened when I put my side project on GitHub and waited for users I built a side project. A self-hosted backend tool. Open source, free for anyone to run. I did the thing every founder tells themselves they will do. Put it out there. Get feedback. Iterate. I expected feature requests. Maybe a bug report about my ugly dashboard. Maybe just silence. What I actually got, within a few weeks, was three security researchers filing detailed vulnerability reports. Real ones. With working proof of concept. One showed they could run arbitrary SQL against any project on the platform. No login needed. Not theoretical. A working exploit, sitting in my issue tracker, with my name on the repo. My first reaction was not gratitude. It was embarrassment. It stings to see "here is exactly how broken your thing is," posted in public, with a timestamp. I sat with it for a day. Then it clicked. Those people were not trying to embarrass me. Nobody spends an hour writing a clean writeup and a suggested fix for something they do not think is worth fixing. They cared. That is the whole thing right there. They cared enough to actually try to break it. Nobody had signed up. Nobody had left a star and a "nice tool" comment. But three strangers had taken my work seriously enough to attack it. That is a rarer thing than a star. So here is the villain in this story, if you want to call it that. It is not the bug. It is the story I tell myself when I see a hard truth about my own work. The instinct to read scrutiny as an attack instead of as attention. I fixed everything the same day. I replied to every report and explained exactly what changed and why. I closed each one out with a thank you that I actually meant by the end. That thread is now the best proof I have that someone other than me has used this thing for real. Better than any testimonial I could write myself. If you are early and the silence feels loud, here is what I would tell you. Do not wait for praise as your sign that people are paying attention. Scrutiny is attention. It is just wearing a different coat. #opensource #saas #vibecoders

• 
  Rusty Williams McMurray (@1RustyMac) reported 15 minutes ago

  Persistent AI doesn’t have a supply chain problem at the model. It has a supply chain problem at the moment it changes its mind. Personality drifts. Tools get installed. Memory accumulates. The thing you shipped on Monday is not the thing answering on Friday. We can attest who built the weights. We still cannot attest who authorized what the agent became on Tuesday. That is the hole. Who is allowed to let it change? We built Living Supply-Chain Security for Persistent AI Organisms around one law: The organism may propose evolution. It may not authorize it. No trace, no drift. If an agent wants a new personality, a new tool, a new maturity, or a rollback — that change does not happen because it felt confident. Confidence is not a key. Self-narration is not evidence. Evidence is not interpretation. Interpretation is not authorization. Authorization has to come from outside the organism, bound to the exact change, used once, and written into an append-only history. Even a rollback cannot erase the record. You can restore a prior state. You cannot pretend the detour never happened. Default-deny. Hash-chained. Externally signed. We froze battery v1 on July 5 and ran it against the paper’s own claims. It held. That is executable evidence. Not a proof. Not a production blessing. Not “alignment, solved.” If it can’t be attacked, it isn’t finished. GitHub later this week. Come try to break it.

• 
  Martin Tobias (Pre-Seed VC) (@MartinGTobias) reported 16 minutes ago

  if you know any founders who are winding down, I may have a buyer of their github repos. DMs open.

• 
  Alireza Bashiri (@al3rez) reported 16 minutes ago

  So I built a workflow around that ↓ 1/ Every enterprise project needs proper E2E tests. An agent should reproduce a bug, implement the fix, then generate screenshots or video proving the feature works. "The tests passed" isn't enough. I want evidence. 2/ Every feature starts as a detailed GitHub issue. Requirements, expected behavior, reproduction steps, screenshots, edge cases. Foundry syncs issues and converts them into Beads so agents keep the right context across long sessions. 3/ We only use Claude Code, Codex, or Grok at High/Max effort for implementation. A weak model with a cloud machine doesn't become an engineer. The model still needs enough reasoning to understand the codebase, test its changes, and recover when things break. 4/ Each agent gets its own isolated @asciidotdev Box. It can install dependencies, run the app, open browsers, modify code, execute E2E tests, and collect evidence without touching another agent's environment. One issue. One box. One clean workspace. 5/ When an agent finishes, Foundry checks: - Did the build pass? - Did the tests pass? - Did the E2E flow work? - Is there screenshot/video evidence? - Does it match the ticket? If anything fails, the task goes back to the agent. 6/ Green tasks move to staging. Only after passing staging do we allow supervised production deployment. Agents do most of the work. Humans still own the final gate. The workflow: Slack request → GitHub issue → Foundry sync → Beads context → Isolated Box → Claude Code/Codex → Build + test → Evidence collection → QA staging → Supervised production The stack: PostgreSQL for system state. Beads for agent memory. GitHub Issues for requirements. @asciidotdev Box for isolated execution. Claude Code and Codex for engineering. Each Box costs roughly $0.01-$0.05 per task. The expensive part isn't compute anymore. It's building the system that gives agents context, forces verification, and prevents bad code from reaching production. 100s of agents can write code. The goal is making 100s of agents ship code you can trust. That's what we're building with Foundry.

• 
  Kun Chen (@kunchenguid) reported 23 minutes ago

  @petergyang yo @myfirstmate peter just told me his skills are all at user level. backpass currently only runs things at project level i want a proposal for making backpass support a user level run. put that into a github issue use fable for peter

• 
  Rafael Audibert (@RafaAudibert) reported 24 minutes ago

  @madebygps @github Tried using it with my agents (the main benefitor from this) but it doesnt really work because you cant use it with GitHub app user tokens (ghu_). Can that be changed somehow? All cloud agents will have that problem, and most of our coding happens trough cloud agents now

• 
  volkdude85 (@volkdude85) reported 25 minutes ago

  @SentientSquirel @linuxuser1996 So you are you scared of github then. Look dude I have fun on computers and don't take myself seriusly because I have destroyed enough OS's over to not worry about it because I just fix it, If the contents of your PC make you this paranoid its time to check your kink.

• 
  Chris (@chriscoolstuff) reported 26 minutes ago

  @pfernan95dev For the SEO part there's one thing that I've been also doing: Ask your agent what keywords you should search for relevant to your app on answerthepublic, perplexity and google Gather all that info old fashion, by yourself - might take around 2 hours but it's worth it Plug all that info into the agent and have it give you 5 titles for 5 articles Make it write those articles - maybe use nosoopai github or edit them manually so they seem more human like Connect the agent to google console After 1 month tell the agent to review the results If no article took off you can wait one more month or put up 5 more After the next month check what worked and double down on that

• 
  Max Rovensky (@MaxRovensky) reported 27 minutes ago

  @thekitze you'd be even further down if you fixed the GitHub bug I just reported