TL;DR
A developer writing on Caleb.software says he has stopped using Claude Code as his main coding tool and moved his setup to Pi, an open-source coding harness. His reasons are personal reports of workflow friction and product changes; the post does not establish a broader user trend or compare the tools in controlled tests.
A longtime Claude Code user says he has replaced Anthropic’s coding tool with the open-source harness Pi, citing limits in his IDE workflow, frequent product changes and a preference for a more customizable setup. The account, published September 21 on Caleb.software, describes one developer’s experience rather than a broad shift among Claude Code users.
Get business pricing on tech for your team
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
The writer says he had used Claude Code since it became available through the Claude Pro subscription more than a year earlier. He describes the tool as an influential coding product but says accumulated frustrations led him to stop using it as his primary development harness. He reports that his first few days with Pi involved some setup work, after which he found the experience smooth.
One issue he raises is the handling of project guidance files. The writer says Claude Code’s use of CLAUDE.md created extra work when repositories also needed an AGENTS.md file, because users had to copy or symlink between formats. He says Anthropic announced support for AGENTS.md the day after he decided to leave; he regarded that change as arriving too late for his own decision.
He also describes constraints in his VS Code workflow. According to the post, only one Claude Code session connected to the IDE can receive selected text from the editor at a time. He says the official extension supports multiple tabs but has shortcomings, including slash commands that do not work, no custom status line and difficulty reading subagent messages. These are the writer’s observations, not independently verified product testing.
Why Tool Stability Matters to Developers
The account highlights a practical choice facing developers who use AI coding assistants: whether to accept a feature-rich, centrally maintained tool or prioritize control over workflow and configuration. For this writer, reliable editor integration and the ability to tailor the tool mattered more than newly added capabilities he said he did not need.
His complaint also points to the costs of frequent changes in development software. He says updates to prompts and tool descriptions can affect model behavior, including how it responds to repository conventions. That concern matters to people who depend on predictable outputs, though the post does not measure how specific changes affected code quality or quantify the time lost.
The move is not evidence that developers broadly are leaving Claude Code, nor does it show Pi performs better on coding tasks. It is a firsthand account that may help readers identify questions to test against their own work: how multiple sessions behave, how much configuration is possible, and whether a tool’s defaults fit their projects.
Products Worth Considering
Logitech MX Mechanical Wireless Illuminated Keyboard, Clicky Switches
Samsung Odyssey G9 QD-OLED 49 Dual QHD Curved Gaming Monitor
LG UltraGear 34G600A-B 34-Inch Curved WQHD Gaming Monitor, 160Hz
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Claude Code to Pi
The writer frames his decision as the result of several small frustrations rather than one outage or a single announced policy. He says Claude Code had been his main coding harness for more than a year and credits it with contributing to a broader change in software development. His criticism is therefore directed at the product’s day-to-day design and direction, not a claim that the underlying concept is without value.
He reports that Claude Code had 244 releases during the year to that point, and says more than three-quarters changed the system prompt or tool descriptions. Those figures come from his own count; the post does not provide an independent audit or a full methodology. He also estimates that the default Bash tool description is nearly 3,000 tokens and argues that some of its guidance is unnecessary. His further suggestion that trimming tokens could reduce inference costs is a hypothetical calculation, not a reported savings figure.
Pi is described in the post as an open-source harness that the writer found minimalist and highly customizable. He says he built extensions for his own workflow, including one to support functionality across multiple open tabs, and plans to share some extensions after cleaning them up. His account does not offer a like-for-like benchmark, pricing comparison or detailed evaluation of model access.
““I’ve finally decided to retire it as my main coding harness and migrate my development setup to use Pi instead.””
— The writer, Caleb.software
What the Account Cannot Establish
The report represents one user’s experience. It does not establish how common the cited IDE problems are, whether they affect all users or configurations, or whether Anthropic has fixed them since the writer encountered them. The post says a report about the multi-session issue had been closed as a duplicate of an unrelated bug, but it does not include enough detail to assess the issue tracker history.
It is also unclear whether the writer’s move will be permanent or whether Pi will suit developers with different requirements. No controlled comparison is provided for coding accuracy, speed, reliability, cost or security. The release counts and token estimate are the author’s own figures, and the source does not independently verify them.
The Writer Plans Pi Extensions
The writer says he intends to continue using Pi and hopes to publish extensions he has created after tidying them up. He also encourages readers who share his frustrations to try an open-source harness, but the post does not announce a formal migration project or make a claim about what other users should choose.
For readers weighing the same change, the clearest next step is to test the tools against their own editor setup and project needs. Further developments to watch include whether Claude Code’s AGENTS.md support addresses the file-format friction described, and whether Pi’s customization can handle the writer’s workflow without adding maintenance burdens. The source provides no timeline for either outcome.
Key Questions
What is the news in “Goodbye Claude, Hello Pi”?
A developer says he has stopped using Claude Code as his main coding harness and moved to Pi, an open-source alternative, after experiencing workflow and product-design frustrations.
Why did the writer leave Claude Code?
He cites limitations in VS Code integration, problems he says exist in the official extension, friction between CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md files, and frequent changes to prompts and tool descriptions.
Does the report show that Pi is better than Claude Code?
No. It is a personal account, not a controlled comparison. The writer praises Pi’s stability and customization, but provides no benchmarks for coding quality, speed, cost or reliability.
What does the writer plan to do next?
He says he plans to keep using Pi and may share extensions he built after cleaning them up. He gives no publication date for those extensions.
Source: caleb.software
