GitHub Actions startup_failure with zero jobs — deleted BuildFailed workflow

[nariman-bee]

🏷️ Discussion Type

Bug

💬 Feature/Topic Area

ARC (Actions Runner Controller)

Discussion Details

GitHub Actions startup_failure — zero jobs created

Hello GitHub Community,

We're experiencing a repository-wide GitHub Actions issue where workflow runs fail immediately with startup_failure, before any jobs are created.

Observed behavior

• Workflow runs conclude with startup_failure.
• Zero jobs are created.
• No runner logs or useful error messages are available.
• Failed runs reference a workflow named BuildFailed, with its registration marked as deleted.
• Our actual CI workflow (.github/workflows/ci.yml) remains active.
• GitHub Actions is enabled, and all actions are allowed.
• The issue affects multiple unrelated branches, including the default branch.
• The real CI workflow previously completed successfully on October 6, 2026.

What we've checked

1. Confirmed that GitHub Actions is enabled.
2. Verified that the actual CI workflow is active.
3. Confirmed that failures occur before any jobs start.
4. Verified that the problem affects unrelated branches.
5. Confirmed that local tests, type checking, linting, and production builds pass.

Questions

1. What could cause GitHub Actions to report startup_failure with zero jobs?
2. Could a deleted or stale workflow registration interfere with workflow dispatch?
3. How can we obtain the underlying dispatcher or workflow validation error?
4. Is there a safe way to repair workflow registration without deleting workflow history?
5. Could this be caused by repository-level restrictions or GitHub infrastructure?

The deleted BuildFailed registration is an observed association, not a confirmed root cause.

We have deliberately avoided changing workflow files or repository settings without evidence.

The repository is private, so I cannot share its URL or internal logs publicly.

Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you!

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[ahbaqdadi]

The next read-only place I would inspect is the failed run's check suite and check-run output/annotations. Zero Actions jobs does not by itself tell you whether any check runs or validation annotations exist. These are separate API resources.

Using an already-authenticated GitHub CLI with access to the private repository, replace the uppercase placeholders:

gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/actions/runs/RUN_ID --jq '{id, event, head_sha, path, workflow_id, check_suite_id, conclusion}'

If check_suite_id is present, use that value here:

gh api --paginate 'repos/OWNER/REPO/check-suites/CHECK_SUITE_ID/check-runs?filter=all&per_page=100' --jq '.check_runs[] | {id, name, conclusion, title: .output.title, summary: .output.summary, text: .output.text, annotations_count: .output.annotations_count}'

For each relevant check with annotations, use its check-run ID:

gh api --paginate 'repos/OWNER/REPO/check-runs/CHECK_RUN_ID/annotations?per_page=100' --jq '.[] | {path, start_line, end_line, annotation_level, message}'

GitHub documents workflow-run metadata, checks in a suite, and check-run annotations. Private-repository reads require the corresponding Actions/Checks read access. A 403/404 should not be interpreted as an empty result.

If an error is exposed, inspect the referenced workflow at the failed run's head_sha, including any reusable workflows it calls. An active workflow on today's branch does not establish what GitHub evaluated for that older run. Compare those details with your last successful run before changing anything.

If there is no suite, no relevant check output, or no explanatory annotation, this route may not expose the underlying dispatcher error. I cannot infer a stale-registration cause from BuildFailed/deleted, and I would preserve the failed history rather than delete/recreate it as a speculative repair. Keep the failing and last-successful run IDs/URLs, exact revisions, UTC timestamps, and sanitized API results for GitHub staff. GitHub's support ticket documentation explains that direct technical support depends on your plan; Free accounts normally use Community for this kind of issue. Share private repository details only through an appropriate private support channel, if available.

AI-assisted answer; the read-only run → suite → checks → annotations path and jq projection were verified against a public workflow run. I have not inspected your private repository or reproduced its failure.

[aspire488]

I'd investigate the failed workflow run's check suite before changing workflow files.

A startup_failure with zero jobs doesn't establish that the deleted BuildFailed registration is the root cause.

Using GitHub CLI, inspect the failed run:

gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/actions/runs/RUN_ID \
  --jq '{id, path, workflow_id, check_suite_id, conclusion}'

Then inspect its check suite:

gh api repos/OWNER/REPO/check-suites/CHECK_SUITE_ID/check-runs \
  --jq '{total_count, check_runs}'

If check runs exist, inspect their output and annotations for the actual validation error.

Also compare the failed run's commit SHA with the last successful run. Check whether the workflow file and any reusable workflows existed at that exact revision.

Finally, verify account billing and Actions spending restrictions. A separate report with the same pre-job failure signature identified a failed payment authorization hold as its cause.

I would preserve the failed runs and their IDs rather than deleting workflow history or modifying working workflow files without evidence.

If there are no check runs or useful annotations, this needs GitHub-side investigation of workflow initialization.