Filament Table Filter Presets Laravel Package

Product Decisions This Supports

• Feature scope for admin/internal tooling: Decides whether "saved views" (named filter presets) ships in the next internal-tools release or stays in the backlog. This package moves that from a ~1–2 week build to a ~1–3 day integration, which changes the calculus for a low-glamour but high-frequency UX win.
• Build vs. buy (buy-and-fork): Provides a concrete third option between "build it ourselves" and "do without" — adopt a small MIT package, vendor it, and fork if needed. At 0 stars and 0 dependents the realistic decision is buy the code, own the maintenance, not buy the vendor relationship.
• Per-user personalization roadmap: Confirms a scope boundary — presets are per-user, not team-shared. That's a product decision in itself: are we investing in individual power-user efficiency (this package) or collaborative workflows like shared team views, hand-off queues, and preset sharing? Those are different roadmaps and this package only serves the first.
• Prioritizing which resources get filter presets: The value concentrates in high-traffic tables where users re-apply the same compound filters — support triage queues, ops dashboards, billing/collections worklists, sales pipeline views, moderation queues. Low-value on rarely-visited reference tables.
• Adoption of a "power user" pattern across the admin surface: If it lands well on one resource, it becomes a reusable pattern (trait + list-page setup) that can be standardized across resources, which is an argument for a platform/tooling investment rather than one-off feature work.
• Sizing the cost of not solving it: Quantify the current workaround — users re-clicking 4–6 filters per session, or filtering in Excel exports. That number is what justifies or kills the ticket.

When to Consider This Package

Consider it when:

• The product runs on Filament tables and the admin/back-office is a genuine part of the product, not an afterthought.
• Users are repeat operators who apply the same compound filter set multiple times per day, and the base table has enough columns/rows that the default view isn't the useful view.
• You're comfortable treating the dependency as code you own: MIT, thin documentation, single maintainer, no dependents, no stars. Pin the version, vendor it, read the trait source (it's small), and write your own smoke test.
• You can absorb the integration risk cheaply — a behind-a-flag rollout on one resource, with a fallback to unsaved filters if the trait misbehaves.
• Your team is already on a coherent Laravel + Filament version and you're willing to verify compatibility against your exact Filament release before committing.

Look elsewhere / skip when:

• You need shared or team-level presets, preset sharing between users, or shareable URLs. Per-user storage is the whole feature here; that's a different product.
• You need documented API stability, support SLAs, or a vendor to escalate to. There is none. Zero stars and zero dependents mean zero community evidence of production use — you are the first adopter, and you should price that in.
• The documentation you have is placeholder-grade ("Feature 1", "Feature 2"). That's a signal that the source is the spec; if your team won't read the source, don't adopt.
• Your filter set is simple — two or three quick-filter tabs or a default scoped view may satisfy users for a fraction of the effort and none of the dependency risk.
• You need presets to be portable across resources, versioned against filter schema changes, or audited. Presets that silently break when a filter is renamed or a column is removed are a support burden you should plan for explicitly.
• The admin UI is not a product surface for you (customer-facing app only) — the payoff doesn't exist.

Adoption gate (what I'd require before saying yes): compatibility verified against our exact Filament version; one resource shipped behind a flag; documented behaviour when a referenced filter is deleted; a named internal owner for the vendored fork.

How to Pitch It (Stakeholders)

For executives (one paragraph): Our back-office users rebuild the same table filters several times a day, every day. A small, free, MIT-licensed package lets them save and reload named filter sets per user — a "saved views" pattern people already expect from any serious admin tool. Estimated cost is one to three days of engineering for a single resource, versus roughly one to two weeks to build it ourselves, and it's reversible: it ships behind a flag and is scoped to one table first. The trade-off is maintenance risk — the package is young, has no adoption history, and is effectively maintained by one person. We mitigate that by pinning the version, vendoring the code, and owning it internally. Recommendation: pilot on the highest-traffic queue, measure time-to-filter and repeat-filter usage, and decide on wider rollout from that data.

For engineering (the ask): Integrate the HasSavedTableFilters trait on the List page of one resource, wire the QueryBuilder constraints for that table, pin the version, vendor the source into our repo, and add a smoke test covering save/load/delete and the "filter no longer exists" case. Flag it for rollout. Report back on: any coupling to Filament internals that would break on upgrade, where presets are persisted, and how much of the trait we'd have to own if we forked.

Framing the risk honestly: This is not a strategic bet and shouldn't be presented as one. It's a cheap, contained UX improvement with a known maintenance tail. If the pilot shows low usage, we drop it and lose two days. If it shows high usage, we've validated a pattern worth standardizing across the admin surface — and we'll have already paid the learning cost.