Entire

Make a branch off origin/main. I want the git-remote-entire helper to have two extra flags:

--version --help

don't use cobra or anything fancy, the ONLY way their behaviour should activate is if ARGC == 1 and ARGV[0] == "--flag". ok?

version should print the versioninfo like the ./cmd/entire does, and help should just be a small text saying:

''' git-remote-entire vXXX

This is a helper which Git calls when encountering entire://... URLs. For more information see https://github.com/entireio/cli. '''

3mo ago·5m

Done. Branch git-remote-entire-info-flags off origin/main, committed (not pushed).

What it does:

git-remote-entire --version → prints version + Go/OS-arch, same info as entire version.
git-remote-entire --help → prints your exact help text (vXXX rendered as v<version>).
Both only fire when it's the single argument (len(args)==2 && args[1]==flag). Git's real invocation passes <remote> <url> (two args), so no collision. No cobra — plain switch.

Notes / tradeoffs:

First line of --version is labeled git-remote-entire <version> (the running binary), not Entire CLI — same fields as ./cmd/entire, just the accurate binary name.
In a local dev build --help reads git-remote-entire vdev; a real release stamps v0.6.x.
Lint: lint:go is clean. The lint:shellcheck failure is pre-existing in mise-tasks/release (untouched by me).

Push when ready: git push -u origin git-remote-entire-info-flags.

Bottom line: your code is correct. The bot isn't disputing behavior — it's nitpicking the comment's word "(two args)" sitting right next to a len(args)==2 check. That's the only real friction: two different counting conventions in the same breath.

git-remote-entire <remote> <url> → os.Args = [prog, remote, url] → len==3 → skips the block. ✅
git-remote-entire --version → os.Args = [prog, --version] → len==2 → triggers. ✅
So "(two args)" means the two git-supplied args (remote + url); the len==2 means one user arg + argv[0]. Both true, different frames — which is exactly why a reader trips.

It works as you saw. The bot's only fair point is the comment can be misread. Two options:

Leave it — it's pedantic, you've already dismissed the sibling comments.
One-word reword so the counts can't be conflated, e.g. drop "(two args)" → "(so os.Args has length 3)".

Want me to apply #2, or reply to the bot dismissing it?