I don’t know if I fully understand what you described. In general you describe something more what a parametric modeling software is good at.
The problem with parametric models: It is easy to apply dimension changes if the workflow of creation keeps the same. But if not, you are almost always spending more time on changing things.
In Rhino there is a lightweight parametric modelling feature build in, called “History”. For simple shapes this should already parameterize your model to a certain extend (but not as a true parametric CAD software would).
If you do this in Grasshopper only, for simple operations like extrutions etc., it is actually a better alternative. However as soon as the geometry gets complicated, the effort of building parametric shapes in GH is expotentially higher. Its hard to tell… A minimal example (posted here) could help to actually decide it better.
Now reading quotes sound more like a scripting task. Not so sure if you can achieve that with vanilla GH components, but again, if you post a minimal example somebody could write it for you (Depends on the complexity of course).
Last but not least, you should test a parameteric CAD software as an alternative. Usually they are more expensive, but when your usecase fits in, then these costs are relative.