Output the theoretical `.command.sh` file when using stub

It would be great if there was a way to run a workflow with -stub but also get the result of what would have run in the script section.

Currently I have a work around that looks something like this:

script:
def prefix = task.ext.prefix ?: "${meta.id}"
def args = teask.ext.args ?: ""
"""
some command \
    $input \
    $args 
"""

stub:
def prefix = task.ext.prefix ?: "${meta.id}"
def args = teask.ext.args ?: ""
command = """
some command \
    $input \
    $args 
"""

"""
echo '${command}'

touch myoutput.txt
"""

But obviously this creates a lot of code duplication and requires one to carefully keep the stub section aligned with every chaneg to the script section.

Suggest implementation

Could be default to output the would-be script to .command.sh.stub or something.
Or it could be an additional option like --stub-run-verbose or some such.
I am not sure how easy this would be to implement with how nextflow is written in honesty.

No source files or tests are identified in the issue. Start by locating Nextflow's stub execution and command-script generation paths, then trace how the script section is rendered during a stub run. Done means a stub run exposes the theoretical script without requiring duplicated workflow code, with regression coverage for the output.