Update code comments for Pi provider

[matt2000]

Summary

Describe this PR in 2-5 bullets:

• Problem: Update code comments for PI provider.
• Why it matters: Incorrect documentation is worse than no documentation.
• What changed: Updated to reflect actually implemented capabilities.
• What did not change (scope boundary): Any code.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated internal documentation for the Pi provider’s capabilities roadmap (versioning and expectations clarified).
  • Clarified which advanced behaviors are unlikely without extensions and removed outdated commentary about prior provider behavior.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 3b082413-bb1e-4f02-965f-17351e3e0d6e

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7467fed and 4b9b556.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• packages/providers/src/community/pi/capabilities.ts

✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• packages/providers/src/community/pi/capabilities.ts

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Replaced and clarified module-level JSDoc in PI_CAPABILITIES to reference the v3+ roadmap and note that structured output, hooks, fallbackModel, and sandbox likely require extensions. Removed an outdated block comment about Pi v1 behavior from PiProvider.sendQuery(). No runtime logic or exported declarations changed.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Pi provider docs & comments packages/providers/src/community/pi/capabilities.ts, packages/providers/src/community/pi/provider.ts	Updated PI_CAPABILITIES module JSDoc to reference "Roadmap (v3+)" and state expectations about structured output and extension requirements; removed an obsolete block comment in PiProvider.sendQuery() describing v1 behavior. No code or exports modified.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• refactor(providers/pi): drop rot-prone file:line refs from Pi comments #1275 — Comment-only edits in the same packages/providers/src/community/pi files, touching similar documentation areas.

Poem

🐰 Fresh ink on Pi's old page,
Roadmap shifted, new stage,
Comments trimmed, the code stays neat,
Rabbity cheers for tidy feet,
Hops of clarity — quick and sweet! 🥕

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	⚠️ Warning	The PR description provides the required Summary section with all four bullets clearly filled out, but omits most other required template sections like UX Journey, Architecture Diagram, validation evidence, and other critical sections.	Complete the remaining required sections of the template: Architecture Diagram, Label Snapshot, Change Metadata, Validation Evidence (test results), Security Impact, Compatibility, Human Verification, Side Effects/Blast Radius, Rollback Plan, and Risks/Mitigations.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and specifically describes the main change: updating code comments for the Pi provider.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

packages/providers/src/community/pi/capabilities.ts (1)

9-14: Optional wording cleanup for readability and consistency.

Consider normalizing Pi capitalization and tightening punctuation around the issue URL sentence to make the note easier to scan.

Suggested comment text tweak

- * The pi maintainer has expressed some opposition to supporting structured
- * output, (https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/1086) so that is 
+ * The Pi maintainer has expressed opposition to supporting structured
+ * output (https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/1086), so that is
  * unlikely to be added apart from an extension.
@@
- * extensions, but probably not off-the-shelf pi.
+ * extensions, but probably not off-the-shelf Pi.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@packages/providers/src/community/pi/capabilities.ts` around lines 9 - 14,
Update the top-of-file comment in capabilities.ts to normalize capitalization of
"Pi" (use "Pi" consistently) and tighten punctuation around the issue URL
sentence: rework "The pi maintainer has expressed some opposition to supporting
structured output, (https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/1086) so that is
unlikely to be added apart from an extension." into a cleaner sentence that
places the URL without a stray comma and uses "Pi" (e.g., "The Pi maintainer has
expressed opposition to supporting structured output
(https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/1086), so that feature is unlikely
to be added apart from an extension."), and apply the same "Pi" capitalization
to subsequent mentions such as "pi" in the following sentence about hooks,
fallbackModel, and sandbox.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Nitpick comments:
In `@packages/providers/src/community/pi/capabilities.ts`:
- Around line 9-14: Update the top-of-file comment in capabilities.ts to
normalize capitalization of "Pi" (use "Pi" consistently) and tighten punctuation
around the issue URL sentence: rework "The pi maintainer has expressed some
opposition to supporting structured output,
(https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/1086) so that is unlikely to be
added apart from an extension." into a cleaner sentence that places the URL
without a stray comma and uses "Pi" (e.g., "The Pi maintainer has expressed
opposition to supporting structured output
(https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/issues/1086), so that feature is unlikely
to be added apart from an extension."), and apply the same "Pi" capitalization
to subsequent mentions such as "pi" in the following sentence about hooks,
fallbackModel, and sandbox.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: a1d3f67b-2fd1-4969-9643-e06fefa2193f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d89bc76 and 7467fed.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• packages/providers/src/community/pi/capabilities.ts
• packages/providers/src/community/pi/provider.ts

💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)

• packages/providers/src/community/pi/provider.ts

[Wirasm]

Hi @matt2000 — thanks for opening this PR.

This repository uses a PR template at .github/pull_request_template.md with several required sections. A few of them appear to be empty or placeholder here:

• Validation Evidence (required)
• Security Impact (required)
• Human Verification (required)
• Side Effects / Blast Radius (required)
• Rollback Plan (required)

Could you fill those out (even briefly)? The template helps reviewers understand scope, risk, and rollback — it speeds up review significantly.

If a section genuinely doesn't apply, just write "N/A" in it rather than leaving it blank.

[matt2000]

Rapidly becoming out of date by other changes.