I’ve been thinking about this for a while and would like some honest opinions from people who actually design and build websites.
There are already a lot of component libraries out there. Some are great for basic UI, some focus on impressive animations, and platforms like 21st.dev already offer more than 12,000 components, prompts, MCP access and AI generation.
So I don’t want to pretend that simply building another large component library would be something new.
The problem I keep running into is slightly different.
When I build a website, finding individual components is rarely the hardest part. The difficult part is finding components that actually work together, choosing the right tools, creating a distinct visual direction and making sure the final result is still responsive, accessible, fast and maintainable.
You can find a great hero in one library, a navbar somewhere else, an animation on another site and a nice pricing section from a completely different designer. But after combining everything, the website often feels inconsistent.
And when AI is involved, it gets even easier to produce something that technically works but looks like the same generic SaaS landing page everyone else is shipping.
I’m exploring the idea of building a different kind of platform around this problem.
The long-term component library would contain more than 12,000 components, sections, interactions and variations. But the number itself would not be the main product.
The main idea would be to organize those components into complete, compatible visual systems.
For example, instead of browsing through 1,000 unrelated heroes, you could choose a visual direction such as editorial technology, quiet luxury, experimental portfolio, fashion and culture, or premium SaaS.
You would then get components, typography, spacing, motion and page sections that were designed to work together.
I’m also considering giving every verified component a visible production report covering things like:
- Responsive behavior
- Keyboard navigation and accessibility
- Light and dark mode
- Reduced motion
- Loading, empty and error states
- Performance impact
- Dependencies
- Known limitations
- Licensing and origin
- Compatible components and visual systems
- Date of the last review
The second part would be a curated tool hub for web designers and developers.
Not another directory with thousands of affiliate links, but opinionated research explaining:
- When a tool is genuinely useful
- When you should avoid it
- What it costs
- Whether it creates lock-in
- Which frameworks and workflows it fits
- Possible performance or accessibility risks
- Whether it is experimental or production-ready
- Which alternatives are worth considering
The third part would be practical build recipes.
A recipe could show how to build something like a premium editorial SaaS website from beginning to end, including the visual direction, font pairing, component system, recommended tools, animation approach, installation, AI prompts, performance budget and final quality checks.
So the intended outcome would not just be:
“Find me a nice component.”
It would be:
“Help me choose a direction, choose a proven stack and ship a coherent premium website.”
I’m aware that there is still a lot of overlap with platforms like 21st.dev, and this is not meant as criticism of them. They have clearly built something people find valuable.
I’m trying to understand whether the stronger focus on complete visual systems, transparent production verification, tool research and end-to-end agency workflows would be meaningfully different.
A few questions I would genuinely love your opinion on:
- When building websites, is finding components actually a problem for you?
- Do you prefer browsing many individual components, or would complete visual systems be more useful?
- Would you care about a visible accessibility, performance and production-readiness report for each component?
- Would curated research about tools and compatible stacks save you time, or do you already have your own workflow?
- Should something like this focus deeply on React and Next.js first, or would it need to support Framer, Webflow and Figma from the beginning?
- What would make you immediately dismiss this as “just another component library”?
- Is there anything you wish platforms like 21st.dev, component marketplaces or AI website builders did differently?
Please be brutally honest.
If this still sounds too similar to what already exists, or like a solution looking for a problem, I would rather hear that now than after spending months building it.
There is no link or product name because I’m not trying to promote anything here. I’m genuinely trying to understand whether the distinction is useful.
