Council3 experts · 1 synthesis
Your councilHistory
📁
The council recommends

On: "Should a three-person startup use a monorepo or separate repos for web and mobile?"

Top pick

Use a monorepo with pnpm workspaces and Turborepo

Start with a single monorepo structured with apps for web and mobile alongside shared packages for types, API clients, and business logic. For a three-person team, eliminating the tax of publishing private packages and coordinating cross-repo PRs drastically accelerates velocity. Keep toolchain setup lean with pnpm workspaces and Turborepo rather than complex enterprise monorepo tools.
Runner-up
Separate repos with shared types published via automated CI packages, viable only if mobile is fully native Swift/Kotlin.
Wildcard
A mobile-first web setup using React Native for Web (Expo) to share UI components directly between platforms.
Best time
Set up the monorepo structure on day one; splitting code into separate repos later is far easier than merging them.
95%
aligned
Average confidence 86%
All experts unanimously recommend a monorepo for a three-person startup to minimize coordination friction.
Your turnFacing a decision like this?Council puts 3 AI models on your question and gives you one verdict. Free, no signup.
Ask your own question →Start from this question
Not on this panel
Kimi K3.1 and Claude Fable 5.1 didn't sit on this council.
Council Pro seats the strongest model from every lab.

Where they agree

✓A monorepo eliminates private package publishing overhead for sharing types and contracts.
✓Atomic commits across clients and backend speed up feature delivery for a tiny team.
✓Separate repositories are primarily justified only by distinct teams or native stacks.

Where they diverge

↔Tools: Google advises strictly lightweight tools, while Anthropic and OpenAI welcome Nx.
↔Scope: Anthropic explicitly assumes React Native/Expo, whereas others leave room for stacks.
↔Risk focus: Anthropic highlights React Native Metro hoisting quirks, which others omit.
The 3 takes
GPT-5.6 Terra
Lens · Architecture & boundaries
Use a monorepo with explicit package boundaries so mobile stays decoupled from web-only code.
88% confident
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Lens · Developer speed & risk
Adopt a single monorepo for atomic commits, sharing TypeScript types and unifying CI setups.
82% confident
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Lens · Operational simplicity
Choose a lightweight monorepo to iterate rapidly without the package versioning tax.
88% confident
InstinctJev · TypeSafeCostly to undoMostly facts
Instinct said separate repos (61%). The council chose monorepo instead.

The shortlist, scored

InstinctGPT-5.6 TerraClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 3.8 Flash
monorepo
Unifies shared types, API contracts, and CI while eliminating cross-repo versioning overhead.
39%
separate repos
Introduces package publishing and coordination overhead unnecessary for three engineers.
61%
Take the council with you
Ask, follow up and revisit every verdict from your phone.
Download on theApp StoreGet it onGoogle Play
Synthesized from 3 independent expert passes. Treat as informed input, not a guarantee. Your own judgment is the final vote.
Facing a decision like this?Ask your own question →