Ownership & accountability · rule model-unowned
dbt models with no owner
A Metacenta review checks this under the rule Models declare an owner. Everything below applies whether or not you ever commission one.
What this rule checks
Where a project already owns models through dbt groups: or an owner-shaped meta key, this rule flags the models that carry neither. It measures the project against its own convention.
Why it matters
A failure or a question about an unowned model has no named person to go to. It reaches whoever happens to remember, and the risk is a model that breaks without anyone noticing.
How to fix it
Bring the unowned models into the ownership convention already in use. Put the model in a group, or set the same meta key the rest of the project uses. Assigning the whole folder in dbt_project.yml catches the next model too.
Before:
models:
jaffle_shop:
marts:
finance:
+materialized: table
After:
models:
jaffle_shop:
marts:
finance:
+materialized: table
+group: finance
When it is fine to leave
If ownership lives outside dbt, in a CODEOWNERS file or a rota, the models are owned in practice. With no convention in the manifest at all, the rule declines rather than flag every model.
What we need to check it
manifest.json. The owner-shaped meta keys we recognise are owner, owners, owner_email, owner_team, team, maintainer, maintainers, steward and contact.