Teams · pair programming with a shared baseline
Two developers, one audit score
The hard part of a team library is not the components, it is the argument about them. Motif gives that argument a scoreboard: 289 components and 116 prompts each carry an audit number, a bundle size and a dependency list, so a review can be about the numbers instead of taste.
Pick a baseline, not a favourite
Start from the a11y 98+ band and the 5 KB budget. Two people who agree on the thresholds disagree less about the components.
Review with the clipboard, not the eye
Every detail page prints its shipped size, dependency list and audit scores above the code. A reviewer can check the claim in the PR against the page.
Fork inside the team the same way forks work here
Keep the original slug and the person who changed it in the commit message. When the upstream component improves, the fork's provenance tells you what you owe.
Write down the trade, not the taste
Each catalog item ships a design note saying why it works. Copying that habit into your own PR descriptions is the single cheapest quality upgrade for a small team.
Licensing questions teams actually ask
Plain-language answers about the two licences on this site — MIT for every component and background, CC BY 4.0 for the 91 guides. Not legal advice; for a commercial decision read the licences and talk to your own counsel.
Can we use these components in a closed-source product?
Yes. MIT permits commercial and closed-source use. Keep the copyright notice with the code you copied — that is the whole obligation.
Do we have to display a credit in our UI?
No. MIT does not require visible attribution. We ask for a line in a README or a launch note, and nothing is gated on it.
Can we re-publish the components as our own internal library?
For your organisation, yes — modify and redistribute as much as you like. What you cannot do is publish the catalog itself as a competing public library under your own name.
Can we put a guide inside a paid course?
Yes, with attribution: name Motif UI, link the original, and note any changes. CC BY 4.0 allows commercial reuse; it does not allow you to add a restriction of your own.
Do the prompts carry a licence obligation?
The prompt text is published under the same CC BY 4.0 terms as the guides, so attribute it if you republish; what you generate from a prompt is yours, with no claim from us.
One developer subscribes — can the whole team use it?
There is nothing to subscribe to. No component, prompt, guide or lab tool on this site is behind a paywall, so there is no seat to share and no seat to police.
What about the audit scores — are they warranted?
No. They are editorial measurements taken on a stated date, published so you can disagree with them. They are not a warranty that a component meets your compliance obligations.
Can we fork a component and drop its dependencies?
Yes, and we would like to know how it went. That is exactly the remix note the submit flow is built around, and the dependency ledger on the quality page shows every asset that carries one.
The quality page is the long version of every number quoted here — audit bands, bundle budgets, dependency ledger and the licence table, all computed from the catalog.
Open the quality bar →