This argument isn't very compelling. Shell scripts are great at tricking you into believing you've got something 100% working when in fact you've only accounted for the happy path and maybe two or three failure cases. This is the primary reason shell scripts are so often broken. There are tons of assumptions baked in which are easily violated.
If your shell script keeps breaking, and you keep fixing it by writing more shell, then you're in an abusive relationship with your programming environment.
"Shell scripts are great at tricking you into believing you've got something 100% working"
Exactly. Shell scripting is basically a non-hygenic macro language, with very complex semantics around its primary data type, the string. It also lacks pretty much all of the affordances we use to write reliable programs. I have no doubt someone has written a typechecker or unit test framework for bash, but I've never seen one used. I'll take the ugly code with the straightforward semantics, thanks.
If your shell script keeps breaking, and you keep fixing it by writing more shell, then you're in an abusive relationship with your programming environment.