If you’ve worked with CI pipelines for any length of time, you’ve likely encountered this pattern:
A test fails in CI.
You rerun the pipeline.
It passes.
Nothing changed in the code.
At that point, you’re left wondering whether the failure was real or just noise. Over time, this erodes trust in the test suite. Developers begin rerunning pipelines automatically instead of investigating failures. CI becomes slower, more expensive, and less reliable.
This is the problem of flaky tests — and it raises a natural question:
Can AI detect flaky tests or predict build failures before they happen?
The short answer is yes — but only when it’s used as a statistical signal layer on top of a well-structured CI system, not as a replacement for engineering discipline.
What Makes a Test “Flaky”?
A flaky test is one that produces inconsistent results without corresponding code changes. It may pass on one run and fail on another under identical conditions.
Common causes include:
- Timing assumptions (e.g., arbitrary sleep durations)
- Race conditions
- Shared mutable state between tests
- Tests relying on external services
- Resource variability in CI environments
In traditional CI setups, flaky tests are usually handled reactively. Teams increase timeouts, add retries, or mark tests as unstable. These tactics reduce friction temporarily but don’t address the root issue.
Over time, the noise accumulates.
A Practical Example
Consider this test:
test("cache updates after save", async () => {
  await saveUser();
  await new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, 1000));
  expect(cache.has("user")).toBe(true);
});This test assumes the cache will be updated within one second. On a fast local machine, that assumption holds. In CI, where machines may be slower or under parallel load, the update sometimes takes longer.
The test fails intermittently. Developers rerun the pipeline. It passes. The failure is dismissed.
Multiply that by dozens of tests and hundreds of CI runs, and the signal-to-noise ratio collapses.
How AI Detects Flaky Tests
AI-based flaky test detection works by analyzing historical CI data rather than individual failures.
Instead of asking, “Did this test fail?”, it asks:
- How often does this test fail relative to changes in related code?
- Does it fail even when unrelated files are modified?
- Does it pass on immediate retry?
- Is its execution time highly variable?
- Does it fail only under certain machine types or parallel conditions?
Over many CI runs, patterns emerge.
If a test fails in 3% of runs, independent of code changes, and passes reliably when rerun, that’s a probabilistic signature of flakiness.
CI systems that aggregate structured test reports — such as Semaphore’s test reporting features — provide the historical data needed for this analysis.
AI does not “guess” that a test is flaky. It detects statistical instability.
Predicting Build Failures
The same historical data can be used to predict build failures before a pipeline completes.
Consider a repository where:
- Changes in a particular module frequently cause integration test failures.
- Certain files are historically associated with fragile areas of the codebase.
- Large refactors tend to correlate with timeout failures.
An AI system trained on this history can assign a probability that a given pull request will fail CI based on the files modified and prior patterns.
This does not replace testing. It augments awareness.
For example:
- If a change touches high-risk areas, the pipeline could automatically trigger additional integration tests.
- The system could allocate a larger machine type to reduce resource-based failures.
- Reviewers could be alerted that the change has a higher-than-normal failure risk.
The pipeline still runs tests. The difference is that it becomes adaptive instead of static.
The Importance of Guardrails
AI detection should never silence failures automatically. That would be dangerous.
Safe implementations follow strict guardrails:
- Deterministic failures still fail the build.
- Smoke tests always run.
- Full test suites execute on main branches or scheduled intervals.
- AI confidence scores are visible and auditable.
AI’s role is to identify patterns and reduce noise — not to override validation.
Benefits Beyond Speed
The biggest benefit of AI-driven flaky detection is not faster pipelines. It is restored trust.
When developers know that:
- Intermittent failures are tracked systematically,
- Flaky tests are surfaced for investigation,
- CI failures reflect real issues,
they stop rerunning jobs blindly and start fixing root causes.
Additionally, infrastructure costs decrease. Retries consume compute resources. Parallel jobs triggered by false failures increase cloud spend. Reducing flakiness reduces waste.
Limitations and Realistic Expectations
AI-based detection is not perfect.
It requires:
- Sufficient historical data
- Structured test reporting
- Stable CI environments
New projects may not have enough signal initially. False positives are possible. False negatives can occur if patterns are too subtle.
AI is a probabilistic layer. It should inform engineering decisions, not replace them.
When This Approach Makes Sense
AI-driven flaky detection and predictive CI behavior are most valuable in:
- Large repositories with extensive test suites
- Teams experiencing frequent CI reruns
- Environments with heavy parallel execution
- Organizations sensitive to CI infrastructure costs
Smaller projects with short test suites may not benefit significantly.
Summary
AI can detect flaky tests and predict build failures by analyzing historical CI data, failure patterns, and code change correlations. When implemented carefully, this improves reliability, reduces noise, and shortens feedback loops without sacrificing validation. AI should augment CI/CD pipelines — not replace deterministic test execution. Flaky tests still need to be fixed. AI simply helps you find them sooner and with greater confidence. Stay tuned for this to come on Semaphore shortly.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a flaky test?
A test that fails intermittently without corresponding code changes, typically due to timing or shared state issues.
Can AI fix flaky tests automatically?
No. AI can identify probabilistic patterns, but root causes must be addressed by engineers.
Is predictive build failure deterministic?
No. It provides probability estimates based on historical behavior.
Does this replace full test execution?
No. Tests still run. AI enhances signal and prioritization.
What data is required?
Historical CI results, execution timing data, retry patterns, and file-change metadata.
Want to discuss this article? Join our Discord.
