arxiv: 2510.01453 · v1 · submitted 2025-10-01 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

The Command Line GUIde: Graphical Interfaces from Man Pages via AI

Saketh Ram Kasibatla , Kiran Medleri Hiremath , Raven Rothkopf , Sorin Lerner , Haijun Xia , Brian Hempel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 10:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI

keywords command line toolsgraphical user interfacesAI interface generationman pagesdocumentation translationshell usabilityautomatic GUI creation

0 comments

The pith

AI can translate man pages into graphical interface specifications for command line tools.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates how artificial intelligence can be used to automatically generate graphical user interfaces from the man page documentation of command line tools. This translation turns textual descriptions of options and arguments into visual controls that users can click and fill in. A sympathetic reader would care because it could make powerful but hard-to-remember command line features available to people who prefer or are more comfortable with graphical interactions. The authors evaluate their GUIde system on a set of commands to assess how complete the resulting interfaces are for typical tasks.

Core claim

We demonstrate a mechanism for automatically creating graphical interfaces for command line tools by translating their documentation (in the form of man pages) into interface specifications via AI. Using these specifications, our user-facing system, called GUIde, presents the command options to the user graphically. We evaluate the generated interfaces on a corpus of commands to show to what degree GUIde offers thorough graphical interfaces for users' real-world command line tasks.

What carries the argument

The AI-based translation of man pages into structured interface specifications, which the GUIde system renders as interactive graphical widgets for command options.

If this is right

Users gain access to command line power through discoverable visual widgets rather than memorized syntax.
Graphical interfaces allow organic discovery of actions via menus and forms instead of documentation searches.
The method applies to any tool with a man page, exposing shell functionality more broadly.
Evaluation on a command corpus quantifies how thoroughly the generated interfaces cover real tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The generated interfaces could be combined with live execution previews to show command effects before running them.
This technique might serve as a base for creating custom desktop wrappers around existing CLI tools.
Applying the same AI translation to other documentation sources like help outputs could expand coverage to more commands.

Load-bearing premise

AI models can reliably extract complete, accurate, and usable interface specifications from man pages without significant human correction or domain-specific fine-tuning.

What would settle it

A large-scale test on popular commands where many generated interfaces omit key options, mis-map argument types, or require manual fixes to become usable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.01453 by Brian Hempel, Haijun Xia, Kiran Medleri Hiremath, Raven Rothkopf, Saketh Ram Kasibatla, Sorin Lerner.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: GUIDE automatically provides GUI interfaces for command line tools by translating man pages into specfications. Abstract—Although birthed in the era of teletypes, the command line shell survived the graphical interface revolution of the 1980’s and lives on in modern desktop operating systems. The command line provides access to powerful functionality not otherwise exposed on the computer, but requires use… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: GUIDE interface, shown for a grep command. commands. These purpose-built GUIs streamlined CLI operations, but were not easily adaptable to commands that were unsupported by the system. Another approach is to provide more general-purpose GUIs. PowerShell’s Show-Command is one such example [6]. Given a structured specification, Show-Command generates a GUI that constructs and executes any PowerShell command… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Automatically creating a GUIDE-line from a man page. arguments. Each of the 20 test cases consists of the text to parse (e.g. “ls -lah”) and flags that are expected (e.g. “-l”, “-a”, and “-h”). For a test to pass, the grammar must parse the command successfully and the parse tree produced must contain nodes for each of the expected flags. The latter condition causes a test to fail if the GUIDE-line contain… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Although birthed in the era of teletypes, the command line shell survived the graphical interface revolution of the 1980's and lives on in modern desktop operating systems. The command line provides access to powerful functionality not otherwise exposed on the computer, but requires users to recall textual syntax and carefully scour documentation. In contrast, graphical interfaces let users organically discover and invoke possible actions through widgets and menus. To better expose the power of the command line, we demonstrate a mechanism for automatically creating graphical interfaces for command line tools by translating their documentation (in the form of man pages) into interface specifications via AI. Using these specifications, our user-facing system, called GUIde, presents the command options to the user graphically. We evaluate the generated interfaces on a corpus of commands to show to what degree GUIde offers thorough graphical interfaces for users' real-world command line tasks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows a working AI pipeline from man pages to runnable GUI specs for CLI tools, but the evaluation gives no numbers on accuracy or completeness.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work builds and demonstrates a concrete system called GUIde that feeds man pages into an AI model to produce interface specifications, then renders command options as graphical widgets. It targets the gap between powerful but syntax-heavy command-line tools and more discoverable GUIs. They run the pipeline on a corpus of commands and report that it covers real-world tasks to some degree. That is the practical contribution here, and it is a reasonable next step in AI-assisted interface generation for existing software.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents GUIde, a system that uses AI to translate man pages (SYNOPSIS and OPTIONS sections) of command-line tools into structured graphical interface specifications. These specifications drive a user-facing GUI that exposes CLI options through widgets and menus. The work demonstrates the end-to-end pipeline and reports an evaluation on a corpus of commands to indicate how thoroughly the generated interfaces cover real-world tasks.

Significance. If the extraction step is shown to be reliable, the approach would offer a low-effort way to surface the full functionality of existing CLI tools to users who prefer discoverable graphical controls, without requiring per-tool manual interface design. The use of existing man-page documentation as the sole input is a practical strength for broad applicability.

major comments (2)

[Evaluation] Evaluation section: the manuscript states that it evaluates the generated interfaces on a corpus to show the degree of thoroughness for real-world tasks, yet reports no quantitative metrics (precision/recall against human-authored reference specifications, completeness scores, error rates, or failure-case taxonomy). Without these data it is not possible to determine whether the AI mapping from unstructured prose to complete, accurate interface specs succeeds at a level that would make the resulting GUIs usable.
[Pipeline description] § on AI extraction pipeline: the central claim that man-page text can be mapped into usable interface specifications without significant human correction or domain-specific fine-tuning is not supported by any comparison to rule-based parsers or by an analysis of common man-page ambiguities (platform notes, prose argument descriptions, variable formatting). This is load-bearing for the practicality of the system.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a single sentence stating the specific LLM(s) or prompting strategy employed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which highlight important areas for improvement in our presentation of the evaluation and the AI pipeline. We address each point below and commit to revisions that will enhance the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the manuscript states that it evaluates the generated interfaces on a corpus to show the degree of thoroughness for real-world tasks, yet reports no quantitative metrics (precision/recall against human-authored reference specifications, completeness scores, error rates, or failure-case taxonomy). Without these data it is not possible to determine whether the AI mapping from unstructured prose to complete, accurate interface specs succeeds at a level that would make the resulting GUIs usable.

Authors: We acknowledge that the evaluation section would benefit from quantitative metrics to better substantiate the effectiveness of the AI-based mapping. In the revised version, we will compute and report precision and recall by manually annotating a sample of the corpus with reference specifications and comparing them to the AI-generated ones. Additionally, we will include a failure-case taxonomy based on our observations during the evaluation process. This will allow readers to assess the usability of the generated GUIs more rigorously. revision: yes
Referee: [Pipeline description] § on AI extraction pipeline: the central claim that man-page text can be mapped into usable interface specifications without significant human correction or domain-specific fine-tuning is not supported by any comparison to rule-based parsers or by an analysis of common man-page ambiguities (platform notes, prose argument descriptions, variable formatting). This is load-bearing for the practicality of the system.

Authors: The paper's core contribution is demonstrating the feasibility of using off-the-shelf AI for this translation task, as evidenced by the successful generation of interfaces for the corpus. However, we agree that addressing potential ambiguities in man pages would strengthen the practicality argument. We will expand the pipeline description to include examples of how the AI handles common issues such as platform-specific notes and variable argument formatting. A comprehensive comparison to rule-based parsers is an interesting direction but would constitute a separate study; we will note this as future work while providing qualitative insights from our experiments. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: system demonstration with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes an AI pipeline that translates man pages into GUI specifications and evaluates the resulting interfaces on a command corpus. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles derivations appear in the provided text or abstract. The central claim is a working system demonstration rather than a closed mathematical argument, so no step reduces by construction to its own inputs or to a self-citation chain. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that man pages contain enough structured information for AI to produce usable GUI specs, plus the implicit assumption that current AI models are capable of this extraction task without additional training data.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Man pages provide sufficient structured information to generate complete and accurate graphical interface specifications
The translation mechanism depends on this premise being true for the generated interfaces to be thorough.

invented entities (1)

GUIde system no independent evidence
purpose: User-facing presenter of AI-generated graphical interfaces for command options
New named system introduced to realize the translation mechanism.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5694 in / 1155 out tokens · 32132 ms · 2026-05-18T10:11:53.329865+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

An Experimental Time-sharing System,

F. J. Corbat ´o, M. Merwin-Daggett, and R. C. Daley, “An Experimental Time-sharing System,” inProceedings of the 1962 spring joint computer conference, AFIPS 1962 (Spring), San Francisco, California, USA, May 1-3, 1962, 1962, https://doi.org/10.1145/1460833.1460871

work page doi:10.1145/1460833.1460871 1962
[2]

The intelligent terminal,

“The intelligent terminal,” https://www.warp.dev/

work page
[3]

Dragging unix into the 1980s (and beyond?) - liveness and source-level reflection,

S. Kell, “Dragging unix into the 1980s (and beyond?) - liveness and source-level reflection,” Curry On!, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/live/nwrCestQTaw

work page 2019
[4]

Bespoke: Interactively Synthesizing Custom GUIs From Command-Line Applications By Demonstration,

P. Vaithilingam and P. J. Guo, “Bespoke: Interactively Synthesizing Custom GUIs From Command-Line Applications By Demonstration,” inSymposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), 2019, https://doi.org/10.1145/3332165.3347944

work page doi:10.1145/3332165.3347944 2019
[5]

The Best of UNIX and the Mac: A/UX 2.0,

A. Rosen, J. Pittelkau, and The MacUser Labs Staff, “The Best of UNIX and the Mac: A/UX 2.0,”MacUser, January 1991, https://archive.org/ details/MacUser9101January1991/page/n119/mode/2up

work page 1991
[6]

Show-command,

Microsoft, “Show-command,” 2024. [Online]. Avail- able: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft. powershell.utility/show-command

work page 2024
[7]

Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages,

B. Shneiderman, “Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages,”Computer, vol. 16, no. 08, pp. 57–69, 1983

work page 1983
[8]

Generating direct manipulation program editors within the multiview programming environment,

M. Read and C. Marlin, “Generating direct manipulation program editors within the multiview programming environment,” inJoint proceedings of the second international software architecture workshop (ISAW-2) and international workshop on multiple perspectives in software development (Viewpoints’ 96) on SIGSOFT’96 workshops, 1996, pp. 232–236

work page 1996
[9]

Graphical program development with pecan program development systems,

S. P. Reiss, “Graphical program development with pecan program development systems,”ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 30–41, 1984

work page 1984
[10]

Sketch-n-sketch: Output-directed programming for svg,

B. Hempel, J. Lubin, and R. Chugh, “Sketch-n-sketch: Output-directed programming for svg,” inProceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Sym- posium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2019, pp. 281–292

work page 2019
[11]

Schreiber, R

R. Schreiber, R. Krahn, D. H. Ingalls, and R. Hirschfeld,Transmorphic: Mapping direct manipulation to source code transformations. Univer- sit¨atsverlag Potsdam, 2017, vol. 100

work page 2017
[12]

Filling typed holes with live guis,

C. Omar, D. Moon, A. Blinn, I. V oysey, N. Collins, and R. Chugh, “Filling typed holes with live guis,” inProceedings of the 42nd ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, 2021, pp. 511–525

work page 2021
[13]

Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated soft- ware engineering,

J. Yang, C. Jimenez, A. Wettig, K. Lieret, S. Yao, K. Narasimhan, and O. Press, “Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated soft- ware engineering,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 50 528–50 652, 2024

work page 2024
[14]

Automated program repair via conversation: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for $0.42 each using chatgpt,

C. S. Xia and L. Zhang, “Automated program repair via conversation: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for $0.42 each using chatgpt,” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis, 2024, pp. 819–831

work page 2024
[15]

Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents

C. S. Xia, Y . Deng, S. Dunn, and L. Zhang, “Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents,”CoRR, vol. abs/2407.01489,

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[16]

Agentless: Demystifying LLM-based Software Engineering Agents

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.01489

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.01489
[17]

Large Language Model-Based Agents for Software Engineering: A Survey

J. Liu, K. Wang, Y . Chen, X. Peng, Z. Chen, L. Zhang, and Y . Lou, “Large language model-based agents for software engineering: A survey,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02977

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[18]

Cline - AI autonomous coding agent for VS code,

“Cline - AI autonomous coding agent for VS code,” https://cline.bot/

work page
[19]

Biscuit: Scaffolding llm-generated code with ephemeral uis in computational notebooks,

R. Cheng, T. Barik, A. Leung, F. Hohman, and J. Nichols, “Biscuit: Scaffolding llm-generated code with ephemeral uis in computational notebooks,” in2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human- Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 13–23

work page 2024
[20]

DynaVis: Dynamically Synthesized UI Widgets for Visualization Editing,

P. Vaithilingam, E. L. Glassman, J. P. Inala, and C. Wang, “DynaVis: Dynamically Synthesized UI Widgets for Visualization Editing,” in Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 2024, https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642639

work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642639 2024
[21]

Coladder: Supporting pro- grammers with hierarchical code generation in multi-level abstraction,

R. Yen, J. Zhu, S. Suh, H. Xia, and J. Zhao, “Coladder: Supporting pro- grammers with hierarchical code generation in multi-level abstraction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08699, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[22]

Modular semantic actions,

A. Warth, P. Dubroy, and T. Garnock-Jones, “Modular semantic actions,” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 108–119, 2016

work page 2016
[23]

Language mod- els are few-shot learners,

T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askellet al., “Language mod- els are few-shot learners,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 1877–1901, 2020

work page 1901
[24]

Parsing expression grammars: a recognition-based syntactic foundation,

B. Ford, “Parsing expression grammars: a recognition-based syntactic foundation,” inProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT sym- posium on Principles of programming languages, 2004

work page 2004
[25]

NL2Bash: A Corpus and Semantic Parser for Natural Language Interface to the Linux Operating System

X. V . Lin, C. Wang, L. Zettlemoyer, and M. D. Ernst, “Nl2bash: A corpus and semantic parser for natural language interface to the linux operating system,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08979, 2018

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[26]

The Command Line GUIde: Graphical Interfaces from Man Pages via AI Supplementary Materials,

S. R. Kasibatla, K. Medleri Hiremath, R. Rothkopf, S. Lerner, H. Xia, and B. Hempel, “The Command Line GUIde: Graphical Interfaces from Man Pages via AI Supplementary Materials,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16749004

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16749004 2025