Based on the fact that Claude Code is only optimized for Anthropic models, whereas Pi and Omp are optimized for a wide variety of models, including open weights.

they are not really optimized for 'wide variety of models' . what optimization did pi do for glm 5.3?

Tool calling success rate, in the case of omp.

Can't edit my post anymore, but here's the omp blog from February talking about improved tool calling rates across 15 models, with only the harness being tweaked to get the improvements.

https://stencil.so/blog/the-harness-problem

Three GLM models are mentioned, but so is Deepseek, Grok, Minimax, Kimi, and Gemini.

because not everything is a shilling advertisement?

Vibes like your low quality comment?

What’s the counter argument? pi and ohmypi are pretty fantastic. Of course like all developer tools it depends how you do your work but I am not sure what you are trying to achieve in your comment.

how would i comeup with counter argument if i dont know what original argument is. No one is disagreeing with your subjective experience, gp comment said 'better' without qualification.

So what’s your opinion on the matter or is it just vibes?