Filament Ddd Starter Laravel Package

Product Decisions This Supports

• Build vs. buy for the admin/back-office layer. This package is a project scaffold, not a runtime dependency: it answers "do we start our next Laravel + Filament product from a pre-layered DDD skeleton, or from a bare laravel new + our own conventions?" It is a decision about team velocity and architectural consistency, not a feature unlock.
• Architecture standardization / platform bet. Adopting it commits the team to a specific domain layering (domain / application / infrastructure / presentation) on top of Filament. That is a multi-quarter decision — it shapes onboarding, code review norms, and how easily modules can later be extracted into services.
• Security posture for MFA. The only product-visible change in this release: Filament 5.10.2 now requires the user to re-enter their password before managing app-based multi-factor authentication. Treat this as a step-up authentication control. It supports (a) compliance/security questionnaire answers around "sensitive account changes require re-authentication," and (b) a deliberate UX trade-off decision — a small friction cost in the account-security screen in exchange for reduced session-hijack blast radius.
• Roadmap timing. No new product capability shipped. This release does not justify scheduling a migration, upgrade sprint, or feature work. It is relevant only to new project kickoffs and to the version we pin in internal templates.
• Release-engineering / supplier-risk decisions. Packagist never served v1.0.2 (it was tagged against the v1.0.1 commit and cannot be corrected), so v1.0.3 is a re-cut of the same code. That is a signal about the maintainer's release hygiene and bus factor — relevant to any "do we standardize on this?" conversation, and a reason to pin exact versions and vendor the scaffold into our own repo rather than depend on upstream tags.

When to Consider This Package

Consider it when:

• You are starting a greenfield Laravel + Filament application and want the domain boundaries laid out before the first feature, rather than retrofitted later.
• The team already has Laravel and Filament fluency; the value here is structure and boilerplate removal, not abstraction over unfamiliar technology.
• You want a starting point to fork and own — copied into your repo, then evolved by your team, with no upstream upgrade obligation.
• Admin-panel-heavy internal tools or back-office products where Filament's resource CRUD is most of the UI surface.
• You need MFA management in the admin panel and want the password-re-entry guardrail without building it yourself.

Look elsewhere when:

• You have an existing application. Starter kits are not composable; there is no incremental adoption path.
• You require vendor support, SLAs, an LTS policy, or a predictable changelog. This is a single-maintainer project, and the v1.0.2 episode shows tags can be burned and republished without code changes.
• You need a proven, auditable dependency chain — v1.0.2 is permanently unusable on Packagist, so any lockfile referencing it must move to v1.0.1 or v1.0.3.
• Your product is a multi-tenant SaaS needing billing, teams, and permissions out of the box; evaluate the first-party Laravel starter kits instead.
• The team has no DDD experience and no appetite for the layering overhead — here it is ceremony without payoff.
• You need the scaffold to pin an older Filament major for compatibility with existing plugins.

Immediate action for anyone on v1.0.1: decide between staying put (no functional delta beyond the Filament bump and the MFA re-auth behavior) and moving to v1.0.3. Because v1.0.3 is byte-equivalent to the never-served v1.0.2, review the v1.0.1...v1.0.3 diff before adopting — the surface area should be the Filament dependency plus lockfile.

How to Pitch It (Stakeholders)

For executives (one paragraph): This release contains no new product capability. It exists because a previous tag was mis-published and never reached the package registry, so the maintainer re-issued the identical code under a new version number. The one thing that touches users is a security improvement inherited from Filament 5.10.2: administrators must re-enter their password before changing app-based multi-factor authentication settings. That is a small, standard hardening step — expect a one-time support question or two, no workflow disruption. Recommendation: no action required for existing products; if we standardize our next back-office build on this scaffold, pin v1.0.3 explicitly and treat the maintainer's release history as a supplier risk to monitor.

For engineering leads:

• Nothing to migrate. No breaking API changes, no deprecations announced.
• Effective delta vs. v1.0.1 is the Filament 5.10.2 bump (and the MFA re-authentication behavior that comes with it). Review the compare link before rolling it into any internal template.
• Fork-and-own the scaffold: copy it into our repo, commit the resulting baseline, and stop tracking upstream tags. This neutralizes the packaging problem entirely.
• Verify the published artifact matches the tagged commit before trusting it — the v1.0.2 incident is a reminder that a version number is not an integrity guarantee.
• If we maintain an internal starter, this is a good moment to fold the MFA re-authentication expectation into our security baseline checklist.