This SCSS file has two areas for improvement:

1. !important Usage: The use of !important violates the repository's style guide, which states: 'Do not use the !important keyword, as it disrupts the natural cascade of styles'.¹ While utility classes sometimes need !important to guarantee they override other styles, it's best to avoid it if possible to adhere to the project's standards.
2. Code Repetition: The code for generating order classes for different breakpoints is very repetitive. This can be made more concise and maintainable by using SCSS loops and maps to generate the classes for all breakpoints in a DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) manner.

Here is a suggested refactoring that addresses both points.

$orders: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12;

// Default order classes
@each $o in $orders {
  .order-#{$o} {
    order: $o;
  }
}

// Responsive order classes
@each $breakpoint, $min-width in $breakpoints-css-utilities-only {
    @media (min-width: $min-width) {
        @each $o in $orders {
            .order-#{$breakpoint}-#{$o} {
                order: $o;
            }
        }
    }
}

Style Guide References

@mckaragoz Did you look at or try this? Any reason it won't work this implementation is much cleaner and doesn't use !important.

This example contains a lot of repetitive code for managing the state of each grid item. To improve readability and maintainability, consider using a model class to represent an item's state and then rendering the items in a loop. This approach makes the example cleaner and easier to understand.

You can replace the current @code block with a view model and a list. Then, you can iterate over this list in the markup to render the MudItem components, which would significantly reduce the amount of duplicated markup as well. For example, you could replace the 6 <MudItem> blocks with a @foreach(var item in _items) loop.

@code {
    private class ItemViewModel
    {
        public int Id { get; set; }
        public int? Order { get; set; }
        public int? OrderSm { get; set; }
        public int? OrderMd { get; set; }
        public int? OrderLg { get; set; }
    }

    private readonly System.Collections.Generic.List<ItemViewModel> _items = new();

    protected override void OnInitialized()
    {
        for (var i = 1; i <= 6; i++)
        {
            _items.Add(new ItemViewModel { Id = i, Order = i });
        }
        base.OnInitialized();
    }
}

This may not work because this example change values dynamically. When tried different kind of iterations i had out of range exceptions so as a last solution wrote the whole example clearly.

While it is true it could be written "tighter" I agree with @mckaragoz for demonstration this is a good deconstructed example.