SCI Studio is for making games, not editing them.
I wrote an assembler once, but it was about 80% done, and I decided to start the compiler instead. I knew that no one would actually be able to make a game in byte code (it would take serious time and skill), and the compiler is all part of me making SCI Studio as simple as possible.
It would be possible to create an assembler that can compile disassembled scripts back to their original state, but it would be a fair amount of work. Not the assembler as much as the disassembler. The disassembler would need a built in virtual machine (basicly a CPU emulator) to properly disassemble the scripts so they can be reassembled. It would execute the code like the interpreter to figure out how everything fits together.
The fact is, this is a lot of work. SCI is just like a computer. Making a disassembler for SCI scripts is the same challenge it would be to make a PC EXE disassembler. The disassembler's not the real hard part. The difficulty comes when you try to make a disassembler that can make reassembleable files.
SCI is designed completely different from AGI. You really can't just hop into a development studio and edit Leisure Suit Larry 3, or Quest for Glory I.
People are also getting confused by the SCI byte code, not realizing that it's just a reference sheet. I want to keep SCI game creation as simple as possible, which is exactly why I didn't include the disassembler as part of SCI Studio. Too many (more) people would try to compile the disassembled scripts with the compiler. Some people even see the byte code and think "SCI looks too hard, I'm going to try something else to make my game", not realizing that the real code you make SCI games with is nothing like that, and very simple.
The next version of SCI Studio I'm working on is doing just that, making it as simple as possible. It allows the users to have project files for their SCI games. With these, they can name their resources whatever they want. For example, View.000 can be "Ego", Script.997 can be "Menu bar script". It also will display these projects with a simpler interface with just the resource name, number and size, rather than number, map offset, package, decoded len, encoded len, package offset, method, etc.
I really think SCI Studio 2.1 will be very easy to use, even for newbies.