On this page
By webiii3
Manual redelivery is a conditional next step, not a recovery verdict. GitHub does not automatically redeliver failed webhooks. Start by preserving the failure evidence rather than assuming another attempt will resolve the incident. GitHub guidance on failed deliveries.
Hypothetical case: a maintainer has a failed repository-webhook record, but authority to retry and the application outcome remain unknown. Nothing has been retried in this example. The useful next step is to identify those gaps, not fill them with assumptions.
Before-attempt incident card
This card is an editorial recordkeeping tool, not an official GitHub checklist. Keep evidence, interpretation and unanswered questions in separate fields.
- Record reference: a private locator for the selected delivery; do not copy credentials or sensitive payloads into a shared report.
- Failure evidence: the reported reason, its source and when it was inspected.
- Authority: confirmed, unconfirmed or awaiting an authorized operator; include the basis for any confirmation.
- Proposed action: what would be attempted, by whom and what remains to be checked.
- Application evidence: what would demonstrate that the intended work actually finished.
- Open questions: an owner and next verification step for each unknown.
Official guidance and unresolved prerequisites
The captured repository guidance describes redelivery through the GitHub web interface or REST API. It does not establish the repository permissions needed to act. Verify current requirements before choosing a procedure. GitHub redelivery guidance.
GitHub also advises investigating the reported reason when a delivery fails repeatedly. Failed-delivery guidance.
Prerequisite decision table
The following decisions are editorial synthesis. They deliberately leave unsupported outcomes unresolved.
| Incident state | Next decision | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Authority or record applicability unconfirmed | Pause the attempt and verify the missing prerequisite. | Whether this operator can act on this record. |
| Repeated failure without an explanation | Investigate before treating another attempt as the remedy. | Whether the underlying problem has changed. |
| Prerequisites confirmed | Consider an authorized manual attempt and define the evidence to collect. | The result of an attempt that has not happened. |
| Delivery result recorded, application evidence absent | Keep application recovery unresolved. | Whether the intended work finished. |
Fill the card before you touch anything
The before-attempt incident card in this article has six fields, and they are meant to be filled in before any attempt is made: a record reference that locates the selected delivery without copying credentials or sensitive payloads into a shared report; the failure evidence, with its reported reason, its source and when it was inspected; authority, confirmed, unconfirmed or awaiting an authorized operator, with the basis for any confirmation; the proposed action, what would be attempted, by whom and what remains to be checked; the application evidence, what would demonstrate that the intended work actually finished; and the open questions, each with an owner and a next verification step. The card is an editorial recordkeeping tool, not an official GitHub checklist, and its discipline is the point: evidence, interpretation and unanswered questions live in separate fields, so a guess never looks like a fact.
What the captured guidance does not settle
The captured repository guidance describes redelivery through the GitHub web interface or the REST API, and that is all it settles. It does not establish the repository permissions needed to act, and the article is explicit that current requirements must be verified before choosing a procedure. The source check date is October 24, 2026, using supplied GitHub Docs captures, not a live availability check. That means three things are still open when this article is read: the permissions, the delivery-history limits, and the procedural details. Refresh all three before acting if the guidance has changed — a procedure copied from a capture is only as current as the capture.
After-attempt evidence
Add a new entry rather than overwriting the original failure. Record whether an attempt actually occurred, its observed result and any application-side evidence. If no attempt occurred, write not attempted; if evidence is unavailable, write unknown.
Use two conclusions: delivery result and application outcome. As an editorial evidence standard, do not promote the first into the second without supporting application evidence. For a workflow where repeated processing could create duplicate work, ask how that risk is controlled before proceeding.
Source check date: October 24, 2026, using supplied GitHub Docs captures, not a live availability check. Refresh permissions, delivery-history limits and procedural details before acting if the guidance has changed.
Part of the API Security Review Hub: eight practical guides for reviewing AI automations that call APIs.
