Payload CMS Has 508 Circular Dependencies: Preventing Codebase Cycles

An analysis using 'madge' revealed significant circular dependencies in popular JavaScript projects. This technical debt, often overlooked, impacts performance and maintainability, but can be systematically addressed.

Payload CMS, a popular open-source content management system, contains 508 circular dependencies across its 675 TypeScript files. This finding, reported by a recent analysis using the madge tool, highlights a pervasive form of technical debt that often accumulates unnoticed in large JavaScript codebases. Such cycles lead to subtle runtime errors, bloated bundles, and slower test suites, posing a significant challenge to long-term project health. The same analysis found Next.js, with 14,556 files, had only 17 circular dependencies, and Twenty, with 5,702 files, had zero.

Silent Technical Debt Accumulates

A circular dependency forms when module A imports from module B, which then imports, directly or indirectly, back from module A. The source points out that "Payload CMS has 508 circular dependencies in 675 TypeScript files. That is not a typo." This count was derived by running npx madge --circular --extensions ts <path> on the main published package root of several open-source projects on May 30, 2026.

The analysis found stark differences in code quality metrics across projects:

• Payload CMS: 508 circular dependencies in 675 files.
• Next.js: 17 circular dependencies in 14,556 files.
• Medusa: 8 circular dependencies in 803 files.
• Strapi: 5 circular dependencies in 259 files.
• Twenty: 0 circular dependencies in 5,702 files.

These cycles accumulate silently. Developers make incremental, individually reasonable decisions, such as a service needing a formatter and a utility needing a service type. The build process typically succeeds, tests pass, and the application ships, yet the underlying import graph becomes entangled. This entanglement can lead to modules pulling in unnecessary code, tests loading entire dependency trees, and difficult-to-debug undefined errors that manifest only during specific initialization sequences.

Common Patterns for Cycle Formation

The analysis identifies three primary patterns responsible for the formation of circular dependencies in JavaScript and TypeScript projects:

Barrel Files (index.ts re-exports)

Barrel files, which re-export modules from a directory, are a significant source of accidental cycles. A cycle forms when a module within a feature directory imports from the index.ts barrel file of that same feature, while the index.ts file simultaneously re-exports that very module. This creates an implicit loop, often without the developer's immediate awareness.

Shared Utility Files

Another common pattern involves shared utility files. A central utils.ts file might contain helper functions used across multiple modules. If one of these modules then imports from utils.ts, and utils.ts later needs a function or type from that importing module, a circular dependency is established. This often happens as utility functions grow and acquire more dependencies over time.

Two-Way Module Communication

Cycles also emerge from direct two-way communication between modules. For example, a UserService might import a UserFormatter from user.utils.ts. Later, user.utils.ts might require UserService for a new helper function. Neither developer intends to create a cycle; each import appears logical in isolation. This pattern is common in architectures where services and controllers, or related domain entities, directly reference each other.

What We'd Change

The madge tool effectively identifies existing circular dependencies, but its utility as a prevention mechanism requires integration into development workflows. Simply running madge ad-hoc provides a snapshot, not a continuous guardrail. For large projects, an initial madge report with hundreds of cycles can be overwhelming, making refactoring a daunting task.

To move beyond detection to prevention, teams should integrate madge or similar tools into their CI/CD pipelines. Configuring a build to fail if new circular dependencies are introduced, or if the total count exceeds a defined threshold, forces proactive resolution. For existing cycles, a phased refactoring approach is necessary. This involves prioritizing cycles based on their depth and impact, then systematically breaking them using techniques such as dependency inversion, event emitters, or by introducing new, more granular modules to house shared logic. For barrel files, stricter linting rules can enforce explicit imports over blanket re-exports where cycles are prone to form.

Landing

The silent accumulation of circular dependencies represents a tangible drag on engineering velocity and product stability. While individually innocuous, these cycles collectively degrade codebase quality, complicate debugging, and increase the cost of future development. Proactive identification and systematic prevention are not merely best practices; they are critical for maintaining a scalable and maintainable software product.

The investor read

The presence and management of circular dependencies offer a signal regarding engineering discipline and long-term technical debt. A project like Payload CMS, with 508 cycles, suggests potential future refactoring costs, slower feature development, and a higher bug surface area, which could impact its scalability and maintainability. In contrast, Next.js's 17 cycles, despite its massive codebase, indicates a more disciplined architecture. For investors, high cycle counts in a SaaS product signal increased operational risk and potentially lower engineering velocity, impacting valuation. Projects like Twenty, achieving zero cycles, demonstrate a commitment to code quality that can translate into faster iteration and lower maintenance overhead, making them more attractive for sustained growth.

Pull quote: “Payload CMS has 508 circular dependencies in 675 TypeScript files. That is not a typo.”