Enhancing Copilot-CLI: Consistent Action Numbering For UX
The Confusing World of Copilot-CLI Action Numbering
Have you ever found yourself in a GitHub Copilot-CLI prompt, ready to make a quick decision, only to pause and re-read the options because the numbering felt… off? You’re not alone. Inconsistent action numbering within tools like the Copilot-CLI can be a surprisingly subtle yet significant source of frustration and cognitive load for developers. Imagine this scenario: one moment, 'Yes' is option 1 and 'No' is option 2. The next, 'Yes' is still 1, but 'Yes, and remember' has appeared as 2, pushing 'No' down to 3. This seemingly small shift can break your flow, forcing you to consciously process each prompt rather than relying on muscle memory. For a tool like Copilot-CLI, which is designed to streamline your workflow and make coding faster, these inconsistencies act as tiny speed bumps.
The core problem here lies in the unpredictable nature of how choices are presented. When interacting with the Copilot-CLI, developers expect a certain level of predictability, especially for common actions like approving or denying a command. However, the current implementation sometimes varies, as demonstrated by the user's example:
│ Do you want to run this command? │
│ │
│ ❯ 1. Yes │
│ 2. Yes, and approve `sed` for the rest of the running session │
│ 3. No, and tell Copilot what to do differently (Esc) │
In this instance, 'No' is number 3. But what if there were only two options? 'No' might then become 2. This dynamic reordering means that a user cannot reliably hit a specific number to select 'No' without first scanning the options. This creates unnecessary mental overhead and slows down interaction, which is the antithesis of what a powerful CLI tool like GitHub Copilot aims to achieve. Developers are constantly making decisions, and anything that makes those decisions even slightly harder or less intuitive chips away at overall productivity and job satisfaction. We rely on these tools to be efficient extensions of our thought process, not to add an extra layer of parsing every time we hit enter. Fixing this aspect of action numbering would significantly improve the developer experience.
The Undeniable Power of Consistency in User Interfaces
When we talk about user interfaces, whether graphical or command-line, consistency isn't just a nice-to-have; it's a fundamental pillar of good design. For a tool like Copilot-CLI, where interactions are often rapid and repetitive, consistency becomes paramount. Think about it: our brains love patterns. When an interface consistently presents information and options in the same way, we develop muscle memory. We instinctively know where to look, what to expect, and which keys to press. This leads to a seamless user experience, drastically reducing the cognitive load required to interact with the software. Without consistency, every interaction becomes a mini-puzzle, demanding our full attention to decode the current set of options.
For GitHub Copilot-CLI users, who are often in a deep coding flow, even a momentary break in consistency can be disruptive. Imagine you're refactoring a complex piece of code and Copilot suggests a change. You quickly want to approve or deny it. If the 'No' option keeps shifting its number, you have to stop, read the prompt, find 'No,' and then press the correct key. This breaks your focus, pulls you out of your coding rhythm, and ultimately slows you down. Conversely, if 'No' were always the same number, say 9 or 0, you could almost subconsciously hit that key without interruption. This level of predictability is what makes tools truly efficient and enjoyable to use.
Moreover, consistency significantly reduces errors. In a fast-paced development environment, accidental approvals or denials due to misremembered option numbers can lead to wasted time, unintended changes, or even more serious issues. By standardizing action numbering, especially for critical 'Yes/No' decisions, Copilot-CLI can help prevent these common user mistakes, making the tool more robust and reliable. It builds trust. When users trust that a tool will behave predictably, they are more confident in using it, exploring its features, and integrating it more deeply into their daily routine. This isn't just about making the tool easier; it's about making developers more productive and less prone to error. The subtle benefits of consistent numbering radiate throughout the entire developer workflow, ensuring that the Copilot-CLI remains a powerful and intuitive assistant rather than an occasional source of mental friction.
A Simple Solution: Dedicating 'No' to a Fixed Number
The good news is that addressing this inconsistent action numbering in Copilot-CLI doesn't require a massive overhaul; a simple, elegant solution exists. The core idea is to always assign 'No' (or the equivalent negative action) to a unique, consistent number, regardless of how many other options are presented. The original suggestion of using a number like 9 or 0 is brilliant because these numbers are typically not used for primary 'Yes' or 'approve' actions, which usually stick to 1 or 2. By dedicating a fixed number to 'No', we immediately eliminate the guesswork and ensure a predictable user experience every single time.
Let's revisit our example. If 'No' was always 9, the prompt might look something like this:
│ Do you want to run this command? │
│ │
│ ❯ 1. Yes │
│ 2. Yes, and approve `sed` for the rest of the running session │
│ 9. No, and tell Copilot what to do differently (Esc) │
Even if option 2 (the
