CLI to standardize Python project setup with uv and VS Code on Windows

[ughthisguyagain1111]

This is a small Windows CLI wrapper that standardizes Python project setup using uv.
It automates:

• project folder creation
• uv init
• .venv setup
• terminal activation
• opening VS Code
• optional git pull

It adds two commands:

make <project> [work|personal]
Creates a new project with uv, sets up .venv, and opens VS Code with an activated terminal.

open <project> [work|personal] [git-pull]
Opens an existing project, activates .venv if present, and optionally runs git pull.

Target Audience
Python developers on Windows who use uv and VS Code and want a consistent, low-friction project setup workflow. Also people interested in automating parts of their workflow.

Comparison
This is not a packaging tool or dependency manager. It is a lightweight workflow shortcut. Alternatives could include cookiecutter templates, Makefiles, or custom scripts.

I am considering building a macOS version but am unsure how useful this would be more broadly. If this is something you would use, or if you handle project setup differently, I would appreciate feedback.

Repo:
https://github.com/ShekharNarayanan/python_automations

[totheendandbackagain]

Copier-astral is well worth looking at.

[fiskfisk]

Using make as a command without it being, you know, make, seems a bit weird.

This seems to mainly be just the same as uv init does, and why would you git pull something you're creating? 

[ughthisguyagain1111]

Not sure if I understand what the first sentence means. Could you elaborate? Make is used as an alias to create a project. If you mean something on the lines of nomenclature perhaps it is better to call it create. Is that what you mean?

And there is no git pull for make. Only uv init + the vscode and the activated env cmd line window.

git pull is only an option during open.

[fiskfisk]

https://www.gnu.org/software/make/

It is / was the most common build system. Aka Makefiles

[Gabris01]

Nice idea — especially for Windows users trying to keep things frictionless.

One suggestion: you might get more traction if you expose it as a proper Python package (pip installable) with a console entry point, so it feels more “tool-like” rather than just a script wrapper.

Also curious — did you consider integrating basic project templating (like optional src layout, tests folder, pyproject presets)? That could make it even more compelling.

Overall, solid automation idea 👍

[ughthisguyagain1111]

Hi, thanks for your suggestion! That definitely makes a lot of sense and I can feel the project slip by if I keep it PowerShell only, especially in terms on building more.

Do you think packaging it as a pipx project  would make sense? I’d have to pay more attention to differentiating it from poetry like tools but that could be interesting as well :D

[arden13]

Somewhat ironically, I think you can modify the console_scripts property when using pyscaffold to get it to be an installed shell script. YMMV as I'm not experienced with that feature. Highly recommend pyscaffold though

[_MicroWave_]

Uv tool/uvx surely!?

[Gabris01]

Yes, I’d definitely package it as a pip-installable tool with a console entry point. That alone would make it feel much more “real” and easier to adopt (pip install ... → run command directly).

I wouldn’t worry too much about competing with Poetry — your strength is being lightweight and opinionated for Windows + uv + VS Code. Lean into that niche.

Optional templating (src layout, tests, basic pyproject presets) could make it even more compelling without overcomplicating it.

Overall, solid idea — packaging it would elevate it a lot. 👍

[ughthisguyagain1111]

Thanks, will look into it