The Temptation to Abstract Early
Every developer knows the feeling: you write a 90-character Tailwind class string, paste it into a second file, and your refactoring instinct fires. "This should be a component."
But premature extraction creates a different kind of debt. A shared component with one or two consumers is harder to change than inline code. You have to reason about all the places it's used, maintain its props API, and write tests for it. If the two usages later diverge (and they often do), you're stuck maintaining an abstraction that serves neither well.
The Rule of Three is a simple heuristic: don't extract until a pattern appears at least three times. Below three, the cost of abstraction exceeds the cost of duplication.
The Typography Audit
I audited every heading and text pattern across a 20-page portfolio site. The findings split cleanly into two categories:
Patterns that repeated 3+ times (extract)
| Pattern | Occurrences | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Page hero title | 7 pages | <Heading variant="hero"> |
| Card title | 5+ components | <Heading variant="cardTitle"> |
| Card description | 5+ components | <Text variant="cardDescription"> |
| Section label | 5 sections | <Text variant="label"> |
| Metadata/timestamp | 4+ components | <Text variant="meta"> |
| Body paragraph | 6+ pages | <Text variant="body"> |
Patterns that appeared 1–2 times (leave inline)
| Pattern | Occurrences | Decision |
|---|---|---|
| About page name/title styling | 1 | Leave inline |
| FAQ question text | 1 component | Leave inline |
| Experience role badge text | 1 component | Leave inline |
| Breadcrumb current page | 1 component | Leave inline |
The one-off patterns are specific to their context. Extracting "FAQ question text" into a variant would create a variant used by exactly one file. That's overhead with no benefit.
When the Rule Bends
There are cases where extracting before three occurrences makes sense:
-
Safety-critical patterns: Form error messages (
text-sm text-error) appeared twice but serve a clear a11y contract. Consistent error display matters. I extracted<Text variant="error">. -
Cross-boundary patterns: A pattern used once in the app and once in shared-ui justifies extraction because the cost of divergence is higher across library boundaries.
-
Complex patterns: If a single occurrence involves 5+ coordinated classes with responsive breakpoints and dark mode variants, the risk of copy-paste drift is high enough to extract early.
Applying It Beyond Typography
The rule works for any design system decision:
| Abstraction | Extract when... |
|---|---|
| UI component | 3+ files use the same element + class combo |
| Style constant | 3+ components share the same className string |
| Custom hook | 3+ components duplicate the same stateful logic |
| Utility function | 3+ call sites with the same transformation |
The key insight: three is the minimum where a pattern proves it's stable. Two occurrences might converge by coincidence. Three occurrences prove there's a genuine shared concept worth naming and maintaining.
The Counter-Argument
Some teams extract everything into a design system from day one. This works when you have a mature design spec with validated patterns. But for evolving products — startups, portfolio sites, MVPs — the spec is the code. Premature extraction freezes patterns before they've proven themselves.
Three similar lines of code is better than a premature abstraction. Wait for the pattern to stabilize, then extract with confidence.