Feature Teams vs Component Teams

Closest to 'silent in production until users hit it' (d9). The detection_hints explicitly state 'automated: no', and the only observable signal is a code_pattern of 'every feature requiring coordination across 3+ teams; waiting for another team to implement something before you can proceed' — a slow, emergent dysfunction that only becomes visible through delivery lag and organizational friction, never through tooling.

Closest to 'cross-cutting refactor across the codebase' (e7). The quick_fix describes reorganizing teams around user journeys or bounded contexts rather than technical layers — this is not a code change but an organizational restructuring that reshapes team charters, ownership boundaries, hiring, and cross-team agreements across the entire engineering org. This is broader than multi-file refactoring and approaches architectural rework.

Closest to 'strong gravitational pull' (e7). The applies_to covers web and cli contexts broadly, and the tags include management and team — indicating this is an org-level structural choice. The why_it_matters note that a single feature requires 3 sprints of coordination under component teams illustrates how the wrong choice shapes every delivery workflow, every sprint plan, and every dependency negotiation across the organization.

Closest to 'notable trap — a documented gotcha most devs eventually learn' (t5). The misconception field explicitly states 'Component teams always have better technical quality — feature teams own quality end-to-end and often deliver better outcomes.' This is a well-documented but non-obvious inversion of a common intuition: developers and managers naturally assume specialization equals quality, but the opposite is frequently true at scale. It's a known gotcha in agile/scaling literature, matching t5.