The new custom scripts feature is nice, but it has far too many shortcomings to make it worthwhile. Two significant shortcomings are as:

• Unique class and package name:
• Reference is made under best practices: "Do use unique class names for each script (for example, by including a reference to a work item in the name). This approach will prevent name clash issues when you upload the script. If a new iteration of a script is required, be sure to give it a new name."
• This means that any change you make you must create a new package. Well, that's a bit excessive don't you think. Why can't you just give us an option to change the version number...or in other words, respect the version number of the package?
• Ignoring doUpdate/doInsert/doDelete:
• Reference is made under best practices: "Do use existing business logic, such as update() methods, but do not bypass business logic by using doUpdate(), doInsert(), and doDelete() methods. This approach will help ensure that dependent data is handled correctly. It will also significantly reduce the risk of further data inconsistencies."
• Well, I understand your concern; however, this tool is so we can bypass standard logic. The reason we are doing this is because we need to bypass standard logic. That's the point of the tool. And this isn't just a best practice or a suggestion, the tool actually CONVERTS doUpdate/doInsert/doDelete to update/insert/delete. I have a problem with that.