CI/CD
Providers using this tag (128)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 13 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 13 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 42 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 35 Limited public surface area
Emerging 16 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 9 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (90)
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 38 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 8 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 15 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 18 Limited public surface area
Emerging 10 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 1 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (47)
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
128 providers carry this tag directly, and 156 counting the 4 narrower tags below — 28 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 125 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 | 46.2 | 23.2 | +23 | 125 |
| Contract Quality | 36.1 | 17.6 | +18.5 | 125 |
| Operational Transparency | 31.6 | 13.7 | +17.9 | 125 |
| Access Clarity | 44 | 26.5 | +17.5 | 125 |
| Discoverability | 65.5 | 58.1 | +7.4 | 125 |
| Contract Governance | 13.5 | 6.3 | +7.2 | 125 |
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) | 28% | 14% | +14 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 24% | 12% | +12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 17% | 11% | +6 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 7% | 2% | +5 |
| Governance rules | 34% | 14% | +20 |
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 90.7
- 2 GitHub Actions 82.8
- 3 Postman 79.6
- 4 Azure DevOps 76.3
- 5 CloudBees 72.8
- 6 Gitea 72.5
- 7 JFrog 71.6
- 8 Bitbucket 70
- 9 Mailosaur 69.2
- 10 Buildkite 68
- 1 Harness 64
- 2 CircleCI 55.4
- 3 Postman 54.9
- 4 GitLab CI/CD 54.3
- 5 Deployxa 54.1
- 6 Routebase 52.9
- 7 Buildkite 51.4
- 8 GitHub Actions 50
- 9 Bump.sh 45.9
- 10 BrowserStack 44.1
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.