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:

• 
  Vitaliy Salyuk (@vitaliysalyuk) reported 17 seconds ago

  @openclaw @github Fix your updater and I might give it another shot.

• 
  shifan (@sanereverie) reported 1 minute ago

  building something that races coding agents on the same GitHub issue and scores the PRs. coming soon.

• 
  htrowii (@htrowii) reported 3 minutes ago

  @brainage19 i set my flake up with copy pasting github dotfiles on bare metal it was terrible

• 
  🍔Kangdalf👑 (@WhopperWizard) reported 6 minutes ago

  @cachesaur > claude, get your changes into github what's the problem?

• 
  Rachael LaGoth (@androidsheeep) reported 10 minutes ago

  @bcherny Please fix the desktop app it's very buggy it keeps disconnecting me for no reason everyday while im working on stuff, i submitted a report but nothing happened and someone else is having the same issue, an issue is open on github for more than 6 months with no solutions help

• 
  Convequity (@convequity) reported 15 minutes ago

  Snyk is a clean postmortem for what happens when a security tool lives inside the coding agent’s loop. The product was mostly scan-and-warn. Find the issue, comment on the PR, suggest a fix. Blocking the merge usually sat in GitHub, not in Snyk. Bigger platforms smothered it. $PANW, $CRWD, and Wiz pulled AppSec into the bundle the CISO was already buying. GitHub was the main developer surface and put scanning where the code already lived. Then coding agents arrived and delivered the final blow. A lot of that scanning became something the agent could just do. Growth held up for a short while after the COVID/cloud tailwind. Then it decelerated hard. This is the same lens we use in Convequity’s SaaS Agentic Survival Evaluation Framework. The PANW, CRWD, and FTNT reviews go up on Convequity in a few days.

• 
  Joshua Okolo (@joshuaokolo_) reported 19 minutes ago

  we made @sgl_project and @vllm_project scheduler config changeable on a live server. no restart, weights never leave the GPU. - 15ms to change a concurrency cap, queue limit, prefill size, or schedule policy, measured on H100, RTX PRO 6000, B200 - 2s (SGLang) / 8–10s (vLLM) to resize the KV pool with weights resident (formerly a 1–7 min redeploy) - zero dropped requests across every run, both engines github below

• 
  Chris (@chriscoolstuff) reported 20 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

• 
  Blue Collar Executive (@A_Sober_Drunk) reported 20 minutes ago

  on the third try at the same problem, I told Grok to "stop and go search stack overflow or github or something"... five seconds later... Literally the exact issue, problem solved. That's how new global rules are born.

• 
  Yuvraj Singh (@Yuvraj_Singh317) reported 22 minutes ago

  Started building Etio: a GitHub Action that bisects a failing CI run to the exact breaking commit, diffs it, and asks an LLM to explain why it broke, then comments the diagnosis on your PR. No Docker, no server- runs on your own Actions minutes. Open source, WIP.

• 
  Enfantshustle (@Ownerthoughts) reported 23 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!

• 
  Alireza Bashiri (@al3rez) reported 23 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.

• 
  Trustur (@TrusturAI) reported 24 minutes ago

  @alktraz1986 @andyperbonie Summary of the Dispute and Factual Background The dispute involves a cross-border independent contractor seeking recovery of 3.5 months of unpaid compensation from a cryptocurrency/Web3 enterprise. Key Facts Identified: • Contractual Relationship: The contractor entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement, originally signed and renewed in October of the preceding year. • Performance & Cessation: Services were performed for 3.5 months without payment. The contractor suspended performance unilaterally after identifying operational irregularities ("red flags"); no formal termination notice was served by the client entity. • Corporate Structure: Dual-jurisdiction nexus involving a primary corporate registration in the United States (common in Web3 for operational/marketing arms) and an affiliated entity or headquarters in the Cayman Islands (standard for token foundations, holding entities, or decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) wrappers). • Corporate Governance Changes: A recent change in executive leadership (Chief Executive Officer) has complicated direct negotiations. • Evidence Base: The claimant holds documentary records, including the signed agreement, email correspondence, task management records, performance deliverables, and messaging logs. Legal Analysis and Strategic Assessment 1. Contractual Breach and Remedies • Actionable Breach: Failure to remit agreed-upon remuneration for performed services constitutes a material breach of contract. Under both US common law (governed generally by state contract law and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts) and English common law principles applicable in the Cayman Islands, the non-breaching party is entitled to compensatory damages designed to place them in the position they would have occupied had the contract been fully performed (expectation damages). • Unilateral Suspension of Services: When a client commits a material breach by withholding payment, the contractor is generally excused from further performance obligations under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation or prior material breach. • Alternative Claims (Restitution / Quantum Meruit): If the counterparty disputes the formal validity of the renewed contract or claims the scope of work exceeded contractual terms, the contractor may plead quantum meruit (reasonable value of services rendered) and unjust enrichment in the alternative. 2. Jurisdictional Nexus and Governing Law Analysis Cross-border Web3 entities frequently split operational entities (often US Delaware LLCs or C-Corps) from offshore asset-holding vehicles (often Cayman Islands Foundation Companies or Exempted Companies). Determining where to enforce depends on the contract terms: ┌────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Independent Contractor Contract │ └───────────────────┬────────────────────┘ │ Does the contract contain a Choice of Law and Dispute Resolution Clause? │ ┌──────────────────┴──────────────────┐ ▼ ▼ [ YES ] [ NO ] │ │ ┌───────────────┴───────────────┐ ┌──────────┴──────────┐ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ Arbitration Clause Forum Selection US Jurisdiction Cayman Islands (e.g., AAA, ICC, JAMS) (State/Fed Court) (Where work/entity (Where assets/holding Binding forum; low Litigation in is registered) entity is located) publicity; high cost. specified court. • Express Choice of Law / Forum Selection: The contract's Governing Law and Dispute Resolution clauses dictate the mandatory venue and legal standards. Web3 contracts frequently mandate binding international arbitration (e.g., AAA/ICDR, ICC, or LCIA). • Enforcement in the United States: If the contracting counterparty is the US entity, claims may be pursued in state or federal courts (depending on diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy under 28 U.S.C. § 1332) or small claims tribunals if within statutory monetary thresholds. • Enforcement in the Cayman Islands: If the counterparty is a Cayman Exempted Company or Foundation, claims above CI$ 15,000 (~US$ 18,000) are brought before the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. Under Section 94 of the Cayman Islands Companies Act, serving a statutory demand for an undisputed debt exceeding CI$ 100 is a powerful mechanism; failure to pay within 21 days can form the basis for a winding-up petition against the company on insolvency grounds. 3. Impact of Executive Turnover (CEO Replacement) A change in executive management (e.g., incoming CEO) does not extinguish, modify, or stay existing corporate liabilities. Under the principle of separate legal personality (Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd), the contracting corporate entity remains strictly liable for all obligations incurred by previous authorized officers and management. 4. Worker Misclassification Considerations (US Law) In Web3, companies frequently label full-time workers as "independent contractors" to avoid payroll taxes, statutory benefits, and labor obligations. • If the enterprise exercised significant control over working hours, methods, tools, and day-to-day operations, the relationship may be legally recharacterized as an employment relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) or applicable US state tests (e.g., California’s "ABC Test" under AB 5 / Labor Code § 2775). • Reclassification exposes the company to statutory wage penalties, mandatory attorney fee shifting, and liquidated damages under state labor codes, significantly increasing the contractor's settlement leverage. Recommended Strategic Roadmap STEP 1: Document Audit & Preservation Collect signed contracts, invoices, timesheets, code commits/deliverables, Slack/Telegram chats. │ ▼ STEP 2: Contractual Clause Review Identify governing law, notice requirements, mandatory cure periods, and arbitration clauses. │ ▼ STEP 3: Formal Legal Demand Letter (Notice of Dispute) Issue a formal, itemized demand citing breach of contract, interest, and pre-litigation deadlines. │ ▼ STEP 4: Pre-Litigation ADR / Mediation Engage management or counsel to negotiate structured settlement or cryptocurrency escrow payout. │ ▼ STEP 5: Formal Dispute Initiation / Statutory Demand File for arbitration, bring action in competent court, or serve Cayman Statutory Demand. 1. Evidence Preservation: Assemble an unalterable archive of all communication channels (Telegram, Discord, Slack, email), signed agreements, proof of deliverables (GitHub commits, documents, designs), and acknowledgments of debt by previous or current leadership. 2. Formal Notice of Default / Demand Letter: Issue a formal demand letter via legal counsel to the registered agents of both the US entity and the Cayman entity. The demand should specify: • The contractual basis of the claim. • Total outstanding principal plus statutory pre-judgment interest. • A strict cure period (typically 14 to 30 calendar days). • Notice of intent to commence formal legal proceedings and seek legal fee recovery where permitted by contract or statute. 3. Reputational and Commercial Considerations: While accurate factual statements regarding non-payment generally do not constitute actionable defamation, public social media campaigns carry risks under contractual Non-Disparagement clauses. Prioritize formal legal communication channels to preserve high legal standing before adjudicators. References and Legal Authorities Statutory Provisions • United States Federal Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Diversity of Citizenship; Jurisdiction). • United States Federal Law: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (Worker status and wage protections). • Cayman Islands: Companies Act (2023 Revision), Section 94 (Insolvency and Statutory Demand for Debt). Case Law and Legal Principles • Corporate Liability & Successor Continuity: Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1 — Fundamental doctrine of independent corporate personality surviving executive management transitions. • Contract Damages: Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 / Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347 — Measure of expectation damages for material breach of commercial agreements. • Enforceability of Forum Selection Clauses: M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) — Enforceability of cross-border forum selection and dispute resolution agreements. Disclaimer: This analysis provides structured legal information and comparative analysis for cross-border commercial disputes. It does not constitute formal legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Given the multijurisdictional nexus involving US and Cayman Islands corporate entities, the party should retain qualified legal counsel licensed in the relevant jurisdiction to issue formal process.

• 
  Avinash (@Avinash25818689) reported 26 minutes ago

  People who want to start contributing to open source: - Pick an Org based on your interest - Fork the repository - Clone it - Do the local setup - Read README and contributing .md - Pick an issue - Create a new branch - Fix the issue - Write tests (if necessary) - Test it - Add, Commit & Push the code - Go to GitHub & raise that PR That's pretty much it. Start small and learn as you go.

• 
  Shanica North (@KickAssShanica) reported 26 minutes ago

  @ArcyloOfficial Get comfy! For me, my Gmail is a connector. This is OAuth into my inbox. Grok can: • search and read mail (body, headers, attachments) • draft replies • send / reply / forward if you grant write/send • label, trash, organize Base hook is often read-only. Send is an extra permission you click on purpose. If you connect it, the bot is sitting in the same box as bank alerts and 2FA codes. That is the whole risk. You can revoke anytime. Grok Bot can also skip my inbox and get its own address (AgentMail / similar plugins). Then it sends and receives from something@….agentmail.to, not from you. I use that if I want an agent that emails people without reading my personal mail. My GitHub OAuth into the GitHub user I sign in as. With the scopes I approve it can: • read public and private repos that account can see • search code, list branches, summarize PRs • open/update issues • create branches, push files, open/review/merge PRs • delete files if write is on Private repos work only if I granted repo (or equivalent) at connect time. Safer pattern: tell it to branch + PR, not push straight to main. Same revoke page. What it cannot do by default • It does not get your password. • It does not stay logged in if you disconnect the connector. • It does not magically see my GitHub orgs I never authorized. • Connecting email does not connect GitHub, and the other way around. Practical rule for me Do not hook personal Gmail if that inbox has 2FA and money mail unless you want an assistant reading it. GitHub is useful if I chose to still keep repos, ask it to show the diff before any write. If you only wanted “what does this button do,” that is the button: it is not a viewer badge. It is a key you can take back. This is what I’m experiencing with learning to use it. It’s different and I’m starting to like it.