cli-affordances

name	cli-affordances
description	Use when the user says: "improve CLI discoverability", "CLI help UX", "CLI flag design", "CLI affordances", "CLI command structure". Review CLI tool discoverability — flag design, subcommand structure, help quality, and progressive disclosure.
user-invocable	true

Review and improve how users discover what a CLI tool can do — command structure, flag naming, help text organization, and the path from novice to power user.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS — path to a CLI script or tool, or blank to target the current branch's changed files.

---

Phase 1: Discover

Identify what to review:

1. If $ARGUMENTS names a file or directory, scope to that
2. Otherwise, find CLI scripts changed on this branch (git-branch-diff-files | grep -E '\.(sh|bash|py|ts|js)$')
3. If no files are found, stop and tell the user: "No CLI scripts found on this branch. Pass a file path as an argument (e.g., /cli-affordances path/to/script.sh) or run on a branch with CLI file changes."
4. Read each file. For each, map: subcommand tree, flag inventory, help text structure, argument parsing approach

---

Phase 2: Assess

Read ${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR:-~/.claude}/skills/cli-affordances/REFERENCE.md for the full set of affordance dimensions. If the file is not found, stop and tell the user: "REFERENCE.md not found — run uv run install.py to install the cli-* skills."

Evaluate each tool against those dimensions. For each, note:

• Solid — discoverable and intuitive
• Gap — missing affordance that users will fumble on
• Risk — actively confusing structure or naming that will cause misuse

Focus on gaps and risks. Don't enumerate what's already solid unless it's noteworthy.

---

Phase 3: Propose

Write out findings to the user, grouped by severity. For each finding: file and line, what the issue is, what the fix looks like.

1. Risks — structure or naming that will cause misuse
2. Gaps — missing discoverability that users will struggle with
3. Improvements — polish that would make the tool easier to learn

Then confirm:

AskUserQuestion:
  question: "Here's what I found. How would you like to proceed?"
  header: "Confirm"
  options:
    - label: "Fix all"
      description: "Implement fixes for all risks and gaps."
    - label: "Risks only"
      description: "Fix only the confusing structure — skip gaps and improvements."
    - label: "Let me pick"
      description: "I'll choose which findings to address."
    - label: "Stop here"
      description: "Don't change anything. The assessment stands on its own."

If "Fix all" → implement all risks + gaps. If "Risks only" → implement risks only. If "Let me pick" → present findings individually for accept/reject. If "Stop here" → end.

---

Phase 4: Implement

Fix each accepted finding. After all changes:

1. Run existing tests if present — detect the runner (pytest for Python, go test for Go, npm test/jest/vitest for Node/TS, bats for shell). Use timeout 300 on all invocations.
2. Verify fixes don't break the happy path
3. Summarize changes made