CLI Consistency Review

Systematic review of a CLI tool's command interface to ensure consistent naming, conventions, and documentation alignment.

Workflow

Step 1: Inventory Commands

1. Run the CLI with --help or -h to get the top-level command list
2. For each subcommand, run <cmd> <subcmd> --help to get its full interface
3. Build an inventory table:

| Command       | Positional Args  | Flags              | Output Formats |
|---------------|------------------|--------------------|----------------|
| pull          | owner/repo       | --issues, --prs    | table, json    |
| search        | [query]          | --type, --limit    | fzf            |
| prune         | owner/repo       | --confirm, --dry-run| table         |

Step 2: Convention Analysis

Check for consistency across all commands:

1. Positional vs Flag arguments:

   • Is the same concept (e.g., owner/repo) passed as positional in some commands and as --repo flag in others?
   • Recommendation: Pick one approach and apply everywhere

2. Flag naming:

   • Are similar concepts named consistently? (e.g., --output vs --format vs -o)
   • Do boolean flags follow the same pattern? (--dry-run vs --confirm vs --yes)
   • Are shorthand flags (-f, -o) assigned consistently?

3. Pluralization:

   • Subcommand names: singular vs plural (e.g., list files vs list file)
   • Flag names: --issue vs --issues

4. Default behaviors:

   • Are defaults consistent? (e.g., if one command defaults to --format=table, do others?)
   • Are destructive commands safe by default? (require --confirm or --force)

5. Error messages:

   • Do error messages follow a consistent format?
   • Are they actionable (tell the user what to do)?

Step 3: Documentation Alignment

1. Compare the README documentation with actual --help output:

   • Are all commands documented?
   • Do the documented flags match the actual implementation?
   • Are examples up to date and runnable?

2. Check help text quality:

   • Does each command have a one-line description?
   • Are flag descriptions clear and consistent in style?
   • Do examples in --help text work?

Step 4: Report

Present findings:

CLI Consistency Review:

Inconsistencies Found:
1. [Issue] — [Commands affected] — [Suggested fix]
2. ...

Documentation Gaps:
1. [What's missing] — [Where]
2. ...

Recommendations:
1. [Convention to adopt] — [Rationale]
2. ...

Step 5: Apply Fixes

For each accepted fix:

1. Update the command implementation (flag names, defaults, etc.)
2. Update help text and descriptions
3. Update README to match
4. Run --help again to verify alignment

Best Practices Reference

• Positional arguments: Use for the primary subject (e.g., owner/repo). Limit to 1-2 positional args.
• Flags: Use for modifiers and options. Always provide --long-form; add -s shorthand only for frequently used flags.
• Boolean flags: Use --flag to enable (default off). For "default on" behaviors, use --no-flag to disable.
• Output format: If supporting multiple formats, use --format=table|json|yaml consistently.
• Destructive operations: Default to dry-run or require explicit --confirm.
• Verbosity: Use --verbose / -v consistently. Consider --quiet / -q as well.

Examples

Example 1: Full CLI review

User: "review our cli arguments and make sure they are aligned"
Action:
1. Run --help for all commands
2. Build inventory table
3. Identify naming inconsistencies
4. Check README alignment
5. Present report with specific fixes

Example 2: Pre-release check

User: "make sure our command implementation and comments are aligned"
Action:
1. Compare help text with actual behavior
2. Verify README examples work
3. Check for undocumented flags
4. Update docs to match implementation