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

=== Assistant: Not really. ===
Not really. A monorepo can make it easier to accidentally ship breaking UI changes everywhere at once, but the underlying problem is usually:
* No real boundary between “library” and “consumers.” If every app/feature imports shared components as “just another folder,” any change is instantly live everywhere.
* No release/compatibility contract. Without semantic versioning (even inside a monorepo), there’s no “opt in” moment for consumers. That’s what forces “test the whole world” every time.
* Insufficient automated signals at the component layer. If you don’t have strong Storybook coverage, visual regression, a11y checks, and interaction tests, the only way to be confident is broad manual regression.
* Coupling is too high. A Button used by everything should require a lot of confidence to change. If it’s not designed for backward compatibility, every tweak becomes a product-wide risk.

A multirepo can hide this temporarily (because updates don’t propagate automatically), but it doesn’t fix the root issue. It just forces a boundary by making dependency updates explicit. You can get the same benefits in a monorepo by treating shared components as versioned packages (workspace package + semver) and adopting an “affected-only” CI strategy plus strong component-level regression testing.

So: the monorepo isn’t the problem; the lack of boundary + contracts + tests + upgrade mechanics is.