CI/CD
Providers using this tag (137)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 20 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 24 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 31 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 33 Limited public surface area
Emerging 21 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 8 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (84)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 27 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 19 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 10 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 13 Limited public surface area
Emerging 12 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (45)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “CI/CD” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Where this tag sits
137 providers carry this tag directly, and 169 counting the 4 narrower tags below — 32 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Developer Tools | 36% |
| Jenkins Plugins + CD Foundation Landscape | 24% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 129 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged CI/CD, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 48.2 | 24.5 | +23.7 | 129 |
| Operational Transparency | 33.5 | 13.2 | +20.3 | 129 |
| Contract Quality | 37.7 | 18.6 | +19.1 | 129 |
| Access Clarity | 48.6 | 30 | +18.6 | 129 |
| Discoverability | 67.4 | 59.1 | +8.3 | 129 |
| Contract Governance | 17.9 | 9.7 | +8.2 | 129 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 30% | 18% | +12 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 29% | 16% | +13 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 19% | 13% | +6 |
| Security | 100% | 99% | +1 |
| Arazzo workflows | 7% | 1% | +6 |
| Governance rules | 67% | 36% | +31 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 Harness 87.7
- 2 GitHub Actions 82.6
- 3 Postman 82.5
- 4 Azure DevOps 81.9
- 5 Amazon CodeDeploy 80
- 6 Currents 77.7
- 7 JFrog 76.8
- 8 CircleCI 73.5
- 9 AWS App Runner 71.9
- 10 Bitbucket 71.9
- 1 Harness 63.2
- 2 CircleCI 56.1
- 3 Currents 55.8
- 4 Postman 55.6
- 5 Bump.sh 54.4
- 6 Deployxa 54.1
- 7 GitLab CI/CD 53.1
- 8 Routebase 52.8
- 9 Buildkite 50.6
- 10 GitHub Actions 45.9
Coverage caveat. 78 of 129 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 14 November 2026, across 41591 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.