Editing Openai/695d28c7-94c8-8006-836b-96dbe559b5eb (section)

=== Assistant: My suggestions only work if they create enforceable contracts. ===
My suggestions only work if they create enforceable contracts. The tools (workspace packages, semver, “affected” CI, Storybook/visual tests) are just the mechanics that make a contract real.

If they only “reorganize folders” inside the monorepo, nothing is fixed.

==== At minimum, it has to be true that: ====
# There is a defined public API surface
* Only exported components/types are allowed for consumers.
'' Consumers cannot reach into internal files (components/Button/internal/'').
* Styling tokens, CSS variables, DOM structure expectations are either part of the contract or explicitly not.
# Breaking changes are detectable and gated
* A change that would break consumers requires an explicit “major” bump.
* PR checks can fail if someone introduces a breaking change without bumping appropriately.
# Consumers can opt in
* They don’t automatically get breaking changes “because main changed.”
* Upgrading is an explicit dependency bump (even inside a monorepo).
# There’s a support/deprecation policy
* You can’t keep Button.v1 forever. You need a window: “2 majors supported” or similar.

==== ### ====

Yes — this is the core contract mechanism. It makes upgrades explicit and creates a place to put “this is breaking” vs “this is safe.” Without it, you’ll always have fear-driven QA.

===== Helpful, but it’s not the contract. It just prevents wasting time when changes are localized. If you change a widely-used component, “affected” will still be big, and that’s correct. =====

===== This is how you validate the contract cheaply. It reduces the need for manual full-product QA for non-breaking changes. But it doesn’t replace versioning. =====

So the real answer is: they need contracts, and the suggested architecture is how you enforce them.

==== If they want the shortest path to “teams stop being afraid”: ====
# Turn <code>components/</code> into a package (@org/ui) with strict exports
* Enforce with lint rules like “no deep imports” and TS path restrictions.
* Treat anything not exported as private.
# Adopt semver releases inside the monorepo
* Every component change comes with a patch/minor/major classification.
* Consumers update by bumping the package version (can be automated PRs).
# Define “what is breaking” Examples that are usually breaking:
* removing/renaming props
* changing default behavior in a user-visible way
* changing DOM in a way tests or CSS selectors rely on
* token changes that alter appearance beyond tolerance
# Add fast regression at the component boundary
* Visual snapshots on every story (PR-gated)
* a11y checks
* interaction tests for key components
# Set a deprecation window
* “We support the last 2 majors.”
* Old majors get only critical fixes (security/a11y), then get removed on a schedule.

==== If their “shared components” are actually a grab-bag of UI + business rules + feature-specific behavior, contracts will keep failing. In that case, they need to split the library (still in the monorepo) into: ====
* pure primitives (Button, Input, Modal)
* composed design-system patterns (FormField, DataTable wrapper)
* feature-level components (should live with the feature)

That’s also contract work: deciding what’s truly shared.

If you want, I can write what a minimal contract doc looks like (“UI library compatibility policy”) plus the CI gates that enforce it.