Article URL: https://earendil.com/posts/pi-autoresearch-and-databricks/ Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49176038 Points: 33 # Comments: 7

AI has made code cheap, and as a result many companies are building bigger tools in pursuit of better performance. Larger prompts, more orchestration, more layers, more complexity. This also makes these tools intrinsically more expensive to use. Pi takes the opposite approach. Pi is the coding harness that chooses minimalism on purpose. It comes out of the box with only 4 tools, and its system prompt and tool definitions come in below 1,000 tokens. The idea being that most work can be done with the basics, and if you want more, build it. Evidence increasingly suggests that Pi’s design is not just cleaner; it’s cheaper and more performant. Users are finding that vanilla Pi produces industry leading results, even before adding on extensions to match user specific workflows and needs. As we'll see in case studies of Databricks and Shopify, Pi produced ideal outcomes for both. Databricks recently shared their findings “Benchmarking Coding Agents on Databricks’ Multi-Million Line Codebase.” The goal of their research was to understand which coding agents offer the best performance on real-world coding tasks, and how task-performance varies with price. To avoid bias from external benchmarks that have become oversaturated, they created their own based on tasks their team of engineers regularly performs. The results match what we would expect, but what many in the industry may have been surprised to learn. In their words, “...the harness a model is called from dramatically impacts cost and quality,” and, “in many cases, simple harnesses like Pi performed best on our workloads.” When combined with Opus 4.8, xhigh, Pi had the highest overall pass-rate, at a significantly lower cost than both Claude Code and Codex. Pi shines because it doesn’t try to wrap the model in a bunch of defaults and instructions that get lost in the instruction hierarchy. Instead, Pi stays out of the model’s way, and the team is able to add what they actually need for their workflow. They reported that when they ran the same model with the same thinking effort through different harnesses, “the cost per task differed significantly (more than 2x in some cases), while quality remained the same”. We call this Pi’s “context discipline”. “Pi sent about 3x less context per turn. It managed context better, keeping a tighter working set and finishing the tasks in fewer runs.”