CLI Output

Review and improve how CLI tools present information — formatting, density, color usage, verbosity, and the split between human and machine output.

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-output path/to/script.sh) or run on a branch with CLI file changes."
4. Read each file. For each, note: all output statements and their destinations (stdout/stderr), color/formatting calls, TTY detection logic, and any verbosity flag handling

Phase 2: Assess

Read ${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR:-~/.claude}/skills/cli-output/REFERENCE.md for the full set of output 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 script against those dimensions. For each, note:

• Solid — handles the concern adequately
• Gap — missing or inconsistent output behavior
• Risk — output that actively misleads, breaks pipes, or is unreadable

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 — output that breaks downstream consumers or misleads users
2. Gaps — missing output capabilities users will expect
3. Improvements — polish that would make the tool more pleasant to use

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 active risks — 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