René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"Improve book-keeping on which `Tool` methods should be considered \"usually bespoke\"","articleBody":"Only two `Tool` methods do not provide a default implementation: `.print_how_to_use()` and the `.name` property.\n\nWhen subclassing a tool, it's not always obvious which methods need over-ridden, compared to which ones provided nicely abstracted defaults, like `is_used`. Of course, any tool implementation is free to over-ride any default method. But for some of them, we expect it as a matter of course - e.g. `get_dev_deps` and `default_command`. It would be good to have some formal separation for these.\n\nThe ultimate objective is #856: to provide easy guidance on how to add new tools. But I don't want to hard-code a list of methods in the `CONTRIBUTING.md` file. I would much prefer to have some structural demarcation in the code, but this will need some design. Perhaps related to #1315.","author":{"url":"https://github.com/nathanjmcdougall","@type":"Person","name":"nathanjmcdougall"},"datePublished":"2026-02-25T23:48:24.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":0},"url":"https://github.com/1316/usethis-python/issues/1316"}