Is that worth the 1000's of commands it spams out most of which aren't completable?
Gives players an advantage over those that don't use it (aka cheating).
This is not cheating and goes against zk design philosophy. Cheating in the sense of zk should be limited to the following applications:
1.) Gaining intelligence that would under normal circumstances be unobtainable (EG: map hack, cheat gadgets, speccheating)
2.) Gaining an unfair state due to programmatic interference (EG: drophack, on-command desyncs)
3.) Circumventing existing fair play aperture through modification of game files, data or ram (EG: removal of projectile hiding)
4.) Generating network interference through deliberate action to create unfavorable network conditions for other players (EG: spamming 100000's of build lotus commands)
5.) Any sort of AI that plays the game for you with full autonomy. Individual unit AI scripts are permissible because said units cannot make their own high level decisions. (EG: adding a helper ai to play the game for you)
A helper widget like Attrition Counter is not cheating because it does not violate these points (not because it is a built in widget that's DISABLED BY DEFAULT). A helper widget that tracks enemy unit counts as they enter los would not be cheating because it does not violate these points. This broad definition leads to some unfair judgement calls such as the use of colvols to become untargetable. As multiple player testimonials here demonstrate that your definition of "cheating" is flawed and would not illegitimatize the use of such a script (in the sense that such a script gives near 0 advantage while providing major disadvantages). Under the above guidelines, the script could be illegitimate by violating point 4 while allowing for legit developers to create user-generated content freely. This I feel is the best middle ground here short of major development work for enforcement and overhead for developers.