Step 1: Solution Assessment — Feature Flags Page Redesign

Problem

The /tools/feature-flags/ page uses a fixed-width table that wraps flag keys mid-word and doesn't scale past a handful of flags, and the reviewed spec (docs/feature-flags-redesign-spec.md) covers a large set of changes (layout, badges, grouping, search/filter, dependencies, save flow) — it's unclear how much of that to build in one pass.

Options

Option A: Full spec in one pass

• Implement everything in feature-flags-redesign-spec.md (grouped list, switch, badges, grouping, dependencies, toolbar/search/filter, save-flow rewrite, error banner) as one Step 3/4 effort.

• Pros: one coherent release; no intermediate half-migrated UI; avoids touching the same templates/JS twice.

• Cons: largest single change to a page with existing tests and a live save-flow; more to verify in one sitting; less room to ship the core layout fix quickly.

Option B: Phased — layout/badges first, toolbar/search second

• Phase 1: grouped list, switch, badges (overridden/locked), dependency display, error banner, save-flow rewrite (feature_flags.js).

• Phase 2 (separate feature cycle): sticky toolbar, search, filter chips.

• Pros: ships the actual pain point (wrapping keys, noisy columns) fast; smaller diff per cycle; search/filter only matters once flag count grows, so it can wait.

• Cons: two Step 3/4 cycles instead of one; toolbar/filter styling has to slot into a layout built without it in mind.

Option C: Minimal fix — layout only

• Fix only the wrapping/column-noise problem (grouped list, switch, remove Effective/Default/Source/Mutable columns) with no grouping, no dependencies, no search/filter.

• Pros: smallest, lowest-risk change.

• Cons: throws away the reviewed spec's grouping/dependency/search work, which solves real stated goals (50+ flag scale, surfacing only what deviates); would likely need redoing later anyway.

Recommendation

Option A. The registry is only 9 flags and the changes are tightly coupled (badges depend on the same row markup as grouping and dependencies; the save-flow rewrite touches every row regardless of scope). Splitting it across two cycles (Option B) mostly just defers work without reducing total risk, and Option C discards goals already reviewed and agreed on. Recommend keeping it one Step 3 plan, sized to fit within the ~1 day / 8-stage guideline — if staging reveals it doesn't fit, split at that point instead of pre-emptively here.