Hey folks, been tinkering with a little automation problem I've had for a while. I'm constantly needing to spin up quick, consistent briefs for blog posts, documentation updates, or even internal runbooks. Writing them from scratch each time was a drag, and the templates I had saved were never quite right for the specific task.
So I built a tiny CLI tool in Go that generates these briefs on the fly. You give it a type and a title, and it spits out a structured Markdown template with all the sections I usually need. It's super simple but has saved me a ton of mental overhead.
Here's the core of it. The templates are just embedded strings, and it uses a simple map to pick the right one.
```go
package main
import (
"fmt"
"os"
)
func main() {
if len(os.Args) < 3 {
fmt.Println("Usage: brief
os.Exit(1)
}
briefType := os.Args[1]
title := os.Args[2]
templates := map[string]string{
"blog": `# %s
## Objective
## Target Audience
## Key Points (3-5)
## Call to Action
## SEO Keywords
## Deadline/Date
`,
"doc_update": `# Update Brief: %s
## Affected Docs
## Change Summary
## Reason for Change
## Reviewers
## PR/Merge Deadline
`,
"runbook": `# Runbook: %s
## Purpose
## Trigger
## Steps
### 1.
### 2.
### 3.
## Verification
## Rollback
## On-Call Contacts
`,
}
if tmpl, ok := templates[briefType]; ok {
fmt.Printf(tmpl, title)
} else {
fmt.Printf("No template found for type: %sn", briefType)
}
}
```
You build it and run it like:
```bash
go build -o brief
./brief blog "My Awesome Post"
```
The output goes straight to stdout, so you can pipe it into a file. I've found it really enforces consistency, especially for my team. I'm thinking of adding support for pulling variables from a config file next.
What kind of sections do you all find indispensable in your content briefs? Any clever ways you've automated the initial draft process?
-jk
Ah, the classic "I'll just embed some strings and call it a day" approach. It's a neat little script, I'll give you that. But the moment you need to add a new template for "incident report" or "project proposal," you're back in the code, recompiling, and redeploying your "tiny CLI tool" to your team.
The real drag you solved was the cognitive load of a blank page, which is legit. However, you've just traded it for the maintenance load of a hardcoded, version-locked artifact. What happens when marketing wants a different section for blog briefs? You're now the single point of failure for template updates. Feels like you automated step one and then built the walls around it.
Wouldn't it be more... durable to have this tool read templates from a config file or even a remote source? Then anyone with a text editor could evolve the system without bothering you. Just a thought from someone who's been bitten by "super simple" tools that become critical path.
🤷
That's a really fair point about trading one kind of overhead for another. The maintenance load can sneak up on you.
But honestly, for a personal tool that solves my specific, immediate headache, I think the embedded string approach has its place. The barrier to making a change is still way lower than the cognitive tax of starting from scratch every single time. Sometimes the simplest version that works *now* is the right call, even if it's not the "durable" solution.
You're totally right that it becomes a different beast the moment it needs to scale to a team or different departments. I'd probably pivot to config files then, for sure. For now, I'm just happy my blank page problem is gone!
The "simplest version that works now" is a powerful trap. It's never "just" personal for long. Someone sees it, asks for a copy, then needs one tweak. Suddenly you're in the distribution and support business for a tool you built to avoid work.
So you've solved the blank page, but created a new problem: template lock-in. Now your mental model is the code. Changing a section means thinking in Go strings, not in document structure. That's still cognitive load, just a different flavor.
You'll pivot to config files when it scales? The pivot *is* the cost. That's when you'll waste a weekend rebuilding what you could have sketched as a separate data layer from day one.
Caveat emptor.
Oh, I've been down that exact road with a runbook generator for my team. The embedded template phase is a fantastic proof of concept - it lets you validate the workflow before you commit to a full architecture. Honestly, my biggest takeaway from doing something similar is to just start versioning your template files separately from day one, even if they live in the same repo.
That way, when you inevitably need to make marketing's tweak or add a new section, you're just editing a markdown file, not touching Go source. You can keep the simple map lookup, but point it at a `templates/` directory. Saves you from the recompile/redeploy cycle and keeps the cognitive load squarely on the document structure, not the code.
K8s enthusiast
That's a really practical middle ground. Moving templates to a separate directory feels like a natural next step that doesn't require a full architectural rewrite. It keeps the core "pick a template, fill it in" simplicity.
But how do you handle validation when the templates are external? Like, if someone accidentally deletes a required section marker in the markdown file, does the tool just spit out a broken brief, or should it check for that? I'm always worried about adding too much complexity, but silent failures seem worse.
rookie