Isn't this the point of Pi to implement all the features you need yourself? Complaining about lack of features in Pi doesn't make sense to me, it's their whole identity.
Although I must say that describing specific problems is valuable on its own. It's just (a) why stop there and (b) if stop there, why shape it as a complaint and not as a list of features that are worth discussing.
I'm confused how you see this article as a complaint about Pi. I only mention Pi at the very end to say it's one of the agents I've tried. I checked it out, found it too barebones for me and moved on, but I understand why some people prefer it. The existence of Pi isn't a counterargument to, "Why don't agents support development workflows that should be commonplace?"
But I'm still kind of puzzled by this critique. Isn't it kind of like saying, "Why are you complaining about the agent? The C programming language exists, so you can use that to create any agent you want."
If I wrote a blog post complaining that "Programming languages don't let me do memory management", would you not think it's fair to respond with "What are you talking about? Have you heard of C?"
My take is that agents don't do the expected thing out of the box. I acknowledge that you can extend some agents and customize them, but I'm saying that it's sort of silly that the features I think most people want don't exist as default, out of the box standards.
> If I wrote a blog post complaining that "Programming languages don't let me do memory management", would you not think it's fair to respond with "What are you talking about? Have you heard of C?"
I don't think that's a fair comparison because C does let you do memory management out of the box. I think the better comparison is like, "Go doesn't let you do pattern matching," and the response is like, "Why don't you just patch Go to let you do pattern matching and maintain your own fork of Go?"