---
title: "Data repository with no CI pipeline | Metacenta"
description: "Why a data repository with no CI lets broken changes reach the main branch, which CI files we recognise, and when a repository can go without a pipeline."
url: "https://metacenta.com/rules/repo-no-ci"
updated: "2026-10-14"
tokens: 660
---

Repository hygiene · rule repo-no-ci

# Data repository with no CI pipeline

A Metacenta review checks this under the rule **The repo runs CI**. Everything below applies whether or not you ever commission one.

## What this rule checks

This rule flags a repository with no CI configuration for a common provider. Workflows under `.github/workflows/`, `.gitlab-ci.yml`, a `Jenkinsfile` and `.circleci/config.yml` count. So do `azure-pipelines.yml`, `bitbucket-pipelines.yml`, `.drone.yml` and anything under `.buildkite/`. Each is matched at the repository root only.

## Why it matters

Nothing runs the tests or the build before a change lands. Correctness then depends on whoever opened the pull request remembering to check, and a broken change can reach the main branch with no failing run.

## How to fix it

**Run the build and tests in CI on every pull request.** Add a pipeline that installs, builds and runs the tests on every pull request. Start with the build alone if the tests are not ready, and add them as they arrive.

## When it is fine to leave

CI configured outside the repository is invisible to this rule. dbt Cloud CI jobs, for example, live in dbt Cloud rather than in a file. So does an in-house runner we do not recognise. Tell us which applies, and the finding comes out of your report.

## What we need to check it

Read-only access to the repository's file list. We see that a CI file exists, not what it runs, because we do not read workflow contents. The finding is medium confidence. If the listing was truncated, we decline rather than report.

## Published rules it corresponds to

**[OpenSSF Scorecard](https://scorecard.dev/)**, rule `CI-Tests`. Ours checks the same concern, tested differently. Scorecard checks that CI actually runs tests on pull requests; this engine sees only that a CI configuration is present, since it does not read workflow contents.

This means our check corresponds to their rule. It does not mean the publisher reviewed or endorses it.

[Ask about a review](https://metacenta.com/enquire?src=rule-repo-no-ci&via=md)

## Related pages

- [Credential files committed to a data repository](https://metacenta.com/rules/repo-committed-credential-file)
- [Archived repositories under review](https://metacenta.com/rules/repo-archived)
- [Data repository with no tests](https://metacenta.com/rules/repo-no-tests)
- [Data repository with no README](https://metacenta.com/rules/repo-no-readme)
- [A sample review, as a client reads it](https://metacenta.com/sample)
- [All published rules](https://metacenta.com/rules)
- [How a review is assessed](https://metacenta.com/standard)