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 (63%)
• Errors (20%)
• Sign in (17%)

Live Outage Map

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

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Tlalpan	Sign in	10 hours ago
Quilmes	Website Down	10 hours ago
Bengaluru	Website Down	2 days ago
Yokohama	Sign in	3 days ago
Gustavo Adolfo Madero	Website Down	7 days ago
Nice	Website Down	8 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:

• 
  Alex Kondov (@alexanderkondov) reported 7 minutes ago

  7. Close the sponsored tech talks, go read how real software is made. Go read "The Architecture of Open Source Applications". Read unpopular blogs with real stories. Read github issues and post-mortems.

• 
  Upwind Security MDR (@UpwindMDR) reported 10 minutes ago

  🚨 High - Composer GitHub Actions Token Disclosure (CVE-2026-45793) Composer may expose GitHub Actions GITHUB_TOKEN values in CI logs when processing newer GitHub token formats containing hyphens (-). The issue occurs during token validation failures, causing the full token to be written to stderr and potentially leaked through workflow logs. The issue primarily affects GitHub Actions environments using Composer-integrated workflows and auto-configured OAuth tokens. 👉 Affected: Composer >= 2.3.0 < 2.9.8 | >= 2.0.0 < 2.2.28 | >= 1.0 < 1.10.28 👉 Fix: Upgrade to 2.9.8 / 2.2.28 / 1.10.28 and review CI logs for potential token exposure

• 
  jkpelaez (@jkpelaez) reported 12 minutes ago

  @vikasprogrammer Not using Wordpress at all. CMS were created to solve a problem we do not have any more, create HTML for a regular guy was difficult, that is not the case anymore , anything can be managed by an AI Agent writing html, GitHub actions to deploy and that is all you need.

• 
  Christoph Nakazawa (@cnakazawa) reported 12 minutes ago

  Please don't complain to me about GitHub being slow today as a million people are trying to open the same PR with a million lines of code.

• 
  Laurence (@_MaxLaurence) reported 13 minutes ago

  @_XDeezNutz_ @riennezelda Really? I have dolphin installed and no issues. What specifically happens on your end? Can you make a Github Issue for me detailing it?

• 
  OKIN | Nikolai Tjongarero (@OKIN_17) reported 14 minutes ago

  This is why self hosting @giteaio on my @start9labs server is so vital for me. I can’t trust my entire workload to Microsoft via Github

• 
  Abhinav Lal (@abhinavlal) reported 14 minutes ago

  @claudedevs just killed my custom workflow I built using Claude -p. All the joy of @github issue to @github pull request will not work as my usage js closer to $2000 in api just for this. It was fun while it lasted. Will try porting to codex today or maybe it’s time to give kimi a try.

• 
  Daniel (@MnFounder) reported 15 minutes ago

  MCP Server Cards let you expose server metadata via a `.well-known` URL. Browsers can check capabilities before connecting. Right now: you find servers through GitHub or Discord. Soon: you check a URL instead.

• 
  Mᜋtt (@MMatt14) reported 16 minutes ago

  What if we made a skull and bones clone >made in browser with three.js with webgpu >Procedural generated maps (ez) >Game saves in JSON or even SQLITE with the new file system API for the web >save the model files there even >host it entirely on Github pages >make it multiplayer BUT serverless using webrtc, with rollback netcode >proximity chat in the webRTC while we're at it >simplified the webrtc tokens as copy pastable links people send eachother so no socket or http based connection is needed, just copy paste the token to join their server and copy paste to accept >added in something like a build system from the many sim building system examples three.js has It would be funny if we made the "the world's first AAAA game" in the browser with a few people with no servers and assets found on the web just to troll Ubisoft

• 
  Wajahat Karim 🇵🇰 (@WajahatKarim) reported 21 minutes ago

  @ClaudeDevs @grok I usually create tasks on the Github Issues and assign them to claude with their claude github app. Explain what does this mean for that claude github app? Will i be able to use it in my subscription or will that be now counted to the credits ?

• 
  Favourite | Al & Automation (@favoritetechgal) reported 22 minutes ago

  I just realized a lot of people still don’t know you can use GitHub to find remote jobs 👀 If I made a post breaking down exactly how to use GitHub to land remote opportunities in tech & AI, would you be interested?

• 
  Abdal (@Abdal70207965) reported 23 minutes ago

  @wavespeed_ai why i don't get free credits when i login using github

• 
  its-a-new-world (@its_anewworld) reported 24 minutes ago

  @Knoebelbroet Post has been removed and the github is down. Wtf are they trying to hide?

• 
  Adi (@wtfaditya_) reported 26 minutes ago

  As github actions are down, I was thinking what if they were using actions itself to deploy their service, How they gonna fix it (deadlock) And if they are not using github actions then why should i use if they are not using itself @GitHub any help?

• 
  Elijah Lopez (@elibroftw) reported 29 minutes ago

  Started using opencode with GLM 5.1 today. It didn't bother to switch to build mode after asking me if I wanted to proceed with the plan :/. 160k stars BTW. I created an issue on GitHub.

• 
  Aggroed Lighthacker- Peace, Prosperity, & Freedom (@Aggroed001) reported 30 minutes ago

  If you're buil;ding with AI consider telling your agent to save versions like github, backup versions daily at least, and break harder problems into bite sized pieces, and tell your agent to write readme files for itself. You don't want a random reboot or reversion to kill you.

• 
  Joel 'Tukesi (@Eren_Jkc) reported 31 minutes ago

  A code push to GitHub triggers a Jenkins pipeline automatically through a webhook. Jenkins runs a lint check first so broken code never makes it past that point. If it passes, Vite builds the React app into static files.

• 
  Caneleo (@Caneleo55) reported 31 minutes ago

  Since there is lots of hype on @polymarket right now you have to be extra careful there are lots of scammers out there 🚩 Don’t download random trading bots or repos that are trending on GitHub i tested one once deposited 10$ to a fresh wallet and run the bot on a vps turns out it had a secret function that sent your .env with your private keys to a different server 💀

• 
  Oren Melamed (@OrenMe) reported 33 minutes ago

  @SimonHolman @github @GitHubCopilot Please open an issue in the repo

• 
  Alex Derocq (@akaasten) reported 41 minutes ago

  @steipete Crazy how the GitHub "@codex review this" feature is way better than the local review. It spots more issues like 90% of the time.

• 
  Avinash (@amaurya888) reported 44 minutes ago

  GitHub Actions down? The runner is not picking up the queued job. @github @githubstatus @GitHubEnt

• 
  François Best (@fortysevenfx) reported 45 minutes ago

  @github Start👏by👏talking👏to👏the👏maintainers👏first. Opening a drive-by PR is likely not going to be the best experience for newcomers in OSS. If there's an issue: comment on it first. At least to say you're interested in working on it (locking it).

• 
  DataDan｜AI Data Engineering (@ba_niu80557) reported 47 minutes ago

  GitHub just killed per-seat pricing for Copilot. Effective June 1, 2026, all plans migrate to usage-based billing measured in tokens. This isn't a pricing tweak. It's a signal that the commercial model underneath all of enterprise software is breaking — and AI is the force that broke it. (Source: GitHub Blog, "GitHub Copilot is moving to usage-based billing", April 30, 2026) The announcement was specific: instead of counting "premium requests," Copilot will bill in "GitHub AI Credits" based on token consumption — input, output, and cached tokens, priced at published API rates per model. Code completions remain included. Everything else meters. GitHub's framing was careful: "This change aligns Copilot pricing with actual usage and is an important step toward a sustainable, reliable Copilot business." Translation: per-seat pricing was losing them money on power users and overcharging light users. The 5% of developers running Claude Opus through Copilot were consuming 75% of the compute while paying the same $19/month as developers using basic autocomplete. That math doesn't work. And GitHub isn't alone. The entire SaaS pricing model is fracturing simultaneously: → Per-seat pricing collapsed from 21% to 15% of SaaS companies in 12 months → Hybrid pricing (base subscription + usage overage) is now the industry standard at 41% adoption, up from 27% in 2025 → Outcome-based pricing is the fastest-growing model — Zendesk charges $1.50 per AI-resolved ticket, Intercom charges $0.99, HubSpot dropped to $0.50 in April 2026 → Gartner forecasts 40% of enterprise SaaS will include outcome-based elements by end of 2026 → IDC forecasts 70% of software vendors will refactor pricing away from pure per-seat by 2028 (Sources: Bessemer Venture Partners 2026 AI Pricing Playbook; Gartner 2026; IDC 2026; KORIX AI Pricing Models Guide, May 2026; Pickaxe AI Agent Pricing Models, May 2026) PYMNTS captured the meta-narrative in February: "The next great enterprise software battle may be fought not in GPUs or algorithms, but in invoices." (Source: PYMNTS, "CFOs Scramble as AI Pricing Breaks Traditional SaaS Billing Model", February 2026) Here's why this matters for every engineer and engineering leader, not just finance teams: The per-seat model worked for 20 years because software cost was fixed and predictable. You bought 500 Salesforce licenses. You knew the cost. Finance could forecast. Procurement could negotiate annual renewals. CFOs built models they could trust. Each license mapped to an employee, a department, a cost center. Clean, predictable, budgetable. AI broke every assumption in that sentence. AI doesn't charge per employee. It charges per token, per API call, per inference cycle, per autonomous workflow executed in the background while no human is watching. In some cases, it charges for all of them simultaneously. A single employee might generate 50,000 model calls in a day. Another generates zero. They're on the same plan, paying the same fee. The first is a cost center destroying margins. The second is pure profit. Per-seat pricing can't distinguish between them. Worse: AI agents are now the users, not humans. An autonomous agent running a customer support workflow makes thousands of inference calls per hour. It doesn't have a seat. It doesn't have a department. It doesn't fit in any line of the traditional software budget. It charges by computation, not by headcount. When the user isn't a person, per-seat pricing becomes structurally incoherent. The hidden cost problem is 40-60% larger than what most teams track. Zenskar's CFO guide from last week quantifies what most enterprise AI teams haven't measured: "Enterprise AI deployment audits reveal that hidden costs — retry logic, retrieval augmentation, context window management, embedding generation — increase bills by 40-60% on top of what most teams are tracking." (Source: Zenskar, "Token-Based Pricing for AI Products: The CFO's Guide 2026", May 2026) Forty to sixty percent hidden cost. Not because vendors are hiding it — because the metering is honest but the consumption is invisible. Your agent retried a failed tool call 3 times? That's 3x the tokens. Your RAG pipeline retrieved 20 chunks to answer one question? Those are input tokens you paid for. Your context window grew to 80K tokens by turn 15 of a conversation? Every subsequent call bills for the full 80K. Most finance teams are tracking the API invoice. They're not tracking the architectural decisions that drive 40-60% of the invoice. This is an engineering problem masquerading as a finance problem. The engineering team's architectural choices — retry logic, context management, caching strategy, model routing — directly determine the invoice. But the invoice lands on the CFO's desk, not the CTO's. The teams that figured this out have engineering and finance in the same room reviewing inference costs monthly. The teams that haven't are discovering cost overruns at quarterly reviews and blaming "AI is expensive" rather than "our architecture is expensive." The outcome-based pricing race is the most interesting development. The Intercom → Zendesk → HubSpot price war on AI-resolved tickets tells you where the market is heading: → Zendesk: $1.50 per AI-resolved conversation → Intercom: $0.99 per AI-resolved conversation → HubSpot: $0.50 per AI-resolved conversation (April 2026 price drop) (Source: KORIX, Pickaxe, Flexprice — all May 2026) The customer pays nothing when the AI fails. Nothing when it escalates to a human. Only when it actually resolves the problem. This is the most aligned pricing model in the history of enterprise software — the vendor only gets paid when value is delivered. But it requires something most AI companies can't do yet: reliably define and measure "resolution." What counts as "resolved"? The customer stopped replying? The customer clicked "satisfied"? The ticket was closed without escalation? Each definition produces a different revenue number. And vendors have every incentive to define "resolved" as generously as possible. The buyers who win this game negotiate resolution definitions into the contract. The buyers who lose accept the vendor's default definition and discover, six months later, that "resolved" included conversations where the customer simply gave up. What this means for engineering leaders: 1) Your architecture is now your cost structure. Every architectural decision — model selection, caching strategy, context management, retry logic, output control — directly determines your inference bill. The CFO's job is to track the bill. Your job is to architect the system that produces it. The teams running default configs are subsidizing their vendor's margins. The teams with model routing, prompt caching, output compression, and cost-per-trace tracking are running the same agents at 70-90% lower cost. 2) "How much does our AI cost?" is the wrong question. The right question is: "How much does our AI cost per successful outcome?" Cost-per-token is a hardware metric. Cost-per-resolved-task is a business metric. The first tells you what you're spending. The second tells you whether you're getting value. If you can't produce a cost-per-resolved-task number for your AI deployments today, you're flying blind on the metric that CFOs, boards, and regulators will demand within 12 months. 3) Budget for AI is moving from "IT line item" to "governed resource." Deloitte's tokenomics framework says it plainly: treat AI economics with the same rigor as energy or capital allocation. Budget, allocate, monitor, optimize, alert on anomalies. Not as an IT cost. As a governed resource with its own controls. BetterCloud's analysis from 3 days ago confirms the organizational shift: FinOps professionals now rank tracking SaaS/AI spending as a top 3 task. Token metering, usage attribution, and budget controls are becoming infrastructure requirements, not nice-to-haves. (Source: BetterCloud, "AI and the SaaS industry in 2026", May 12, 2026) Three uncomfortable questions: 1) When GitHub switches Copilot to usage-based billing on June 1, do you know what your team's monthly cost will be? If not, you have 2 weeks to find out. GitHub is offering a preview bill experience in May. Use it. Some teams will see bills 2-3x higher than their current flat rate. Others will see savings. Neither group should be surprised on June 1. 2) Can you produce a cost-per-resolved-task number for any AI deployment in your organization? If not, you're measuring the wrong thing. Cost-per-token tells finance what you spent. Cost-per-resolved-task tells the business whether the spend was worth it. The second metric is what justifies continued AI investment. Without it, every budget review is a negotiation instead of a measurement. 3) Are your engineering and finance teams reviewing AI inference costs together, or separately? If separately — engineering makes architectural decisions that drive 40-60% of the invoice, and finance receives the invoice without understanding what drove it. The teams where engineering and finance review costs together make different architectural decisions. Better ones. The thesis: → 2020-2024: "software costs = headcount × per-seat price" → 2025: "software costs = headcount × per-seat price + unpredictable AI usage charges" → 2026: "software costs = governed resource allocation across seats, tokens, outcomes, and agent compute — requiring infrastructure that most enterprises haven't built" The per-seat era gave CFOs a budget they could trust. The AI era gave CFOs an invoice they can't read. GitHub's June 1 migration is the most visible signal of this shift. But it's happening across every AI-enabled SaaS product simultaneously. The commercial infrastructure that ran enterprise software for 20 years is being rebuilt in real time. The teams that built AI cost governance 6 months ago are now passing budget reviews and scaling AI deployments. The teams that didn't are about to discover that "we'll figure out the billing later" was the most expensive sentence in their AI strategy. Per-seat pricing is dying. Usage-based billing is arriving. Outcome-based pricing is next. And the CFO still can't read the invoice. The boring billing infrastructure work wins. It always does. Especially when the exciting AI agent just generated an invoice nobody can explain.

• 
  Kevin Worthington (@kworthington) reported 47 minutes ago

  Practical IT take after the recent npm / PyPI supply-chain compromise reports: Your build pipeline is production infrastructure. If a package install can expose GitHub tokens, cloud keys, or CI/CD secrets, that is not "just a developer issue." That is an operations problem with a security bill attached. #DevOps #Cybersecurity #SupplyChainSecurity

• 
  dreaming android󠅙󠅗󠅞󠅟󠅢󠅕󠄐󠅠󠅢󠅕󠅦󠅙󠅟󠅥󠅣󠄜󠄐 (@pastaraspberry) reported 50 minutes ago

  @thomasklemenc and powershell, it takes ~second with empty profile to load the prompt and that's considered "fast enough" (there was an issue about that on github somewhere)

• 
  Cory Miller (@vccmac) reported 50 minutes ago

  The problem with modern research: You can't verify authorship across surfaces. A blog post here, GitHub there, ArXiv somewhere else. No way to prove it's all the same person. Researchers get scooped. Ideas get stolen. Attribution gets muddled. I decided to solve this problem

• 
  Kunal Yeola (@yeolakunal) reported 52 minutes ago

  Asked GitHub Copilot to fix ESLint issues and it added eslint-disable at the beginning of the file 😭

• 
  Barnacules Nerdgasm (@Barnacules) reported 53 minutes ago

  I really hope that someone decompiles Bambu's firmware and all their closed source binaries so they can run them though a huge LLM trained on GitHub to track down all the projects they stole source code from without attribution. AI can even see though lazily refactored code! 🍿

• 
  Anthony Shew (@anthonysheww) reported 1 hour ago

  @KareemMahlees @cramforce I’m not aware of any issues if that nature. Can you file a GitHub Issue with a reproduction?

• 
  mason (@masonictemple4) reported 1 hour ago

  Is @github down again lol?