docs: add usage section

[Barbapapazes]

🔗 Linked issue

fix partially #62

❓ Type of change

• 📖 Documentation (updates to the documentation, readme, or JSdoc annotations)
• 🐞 Bug fix (a non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
• 👌 Enhancement (improving an existing functionality like performance)
• ✨ New feature (a non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• 🧹 Chore (updates to the build process or auxiliary tools and libraries)
• ⚠️ Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

📚 Description

This PR add a usage section to the README.

📝 Checklist

• I have linked an issue or discussion.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #70 (26a44f2) into main (f4c4447) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 26a44f2 differs from pull request most recent head 99a43fc. Consider uploading reports for the commit 99a43fc to get more accurate results

@@    Coverage Diff     @@
##   main   #70   +/-   ##
==========================
==========================

[jd-solanki]

Thanks for the detailed docs. I have reviewed as per your comment and assume we need to write the extension while executing the script. Feel free to ignore comments if aren't relevant.

Thanks again 😇

[jd-solanki]

Should we rename it to API and add more stuff like what other "type" are available for commands and explain default & required?

[Barbapapazes]

Do you refer to the args object @jd-solanki from defineCommand?

[jd-solanki]

Yes args's type property.

[Barbapapazes]

Yes, good idea! I will add a section about it.

[Barbapapazes]

Added!

[Barbapapazes]

Maybe, I could add that positional arguments are required by default, not if there is a default value.

[Barbapapazes]

related to #73

[DanielRivers]

Love these updates! answers most of my questions I had. Merging this will help so many others.