Neither do people, yet people manage to write software that they can evolve over a long time, and agents have yet to do that. I think it's because people can move back and forth between levels of abstraction, and they know when it's best to do it, but agents seem to have a really hard time doing that.
On the other hand, agents are very good at debugging complex bugs that span many parts of the codebase, and they manage to do that even with their context limitations. So I don't think it's about context. They're just not smart enough to write stable code yet.
You need a specific methodology to do that, one that separates "programming in the large" (the interaction across program modules) from "programming in the small" within a single, completely surveyable module. In an agentic context, "surveyable" code realistically has to imply a manageable size relative to the agent's context. If the abstraction boundaries across modules leak in a major way (including due to undocumented or casually broken invariants) that's a bit of a disaster, especially wrt. evolvability.
But this happens at all levels because there are many more than just two abstraction levels. E.g. do I change a subroutine's signature or do I change the callsite? Agents get it wrong. A lot.
Another thing they just don't get (because they're so focused on task success) is that it's very often better to let things go wrong in a way that could inform changes rather than get things to "work" in a way that hides the problem. One of the reasons agent code needs to be reviewed even more carefully than human code is that they're really good at hiding issues with potentially catastrophic consequences.
That's realistically because they aren't even trying to answer that question by thinking sensibly about the code. Working in a limited context with anything they do leaves them guessing and trying the first thing that might work. That's why they generally do a bit better when you explicitly ask them to reverse engineer/document a design of some existing codebase: that's a problem that at least involves an explicit requirement to comprehensively survey the code, figure out what part matters, etc. They can't be expected to do that as a default. It's not even a limitation of existing models, it's quite inherent to how they're architected.
It's funny, but one of the lessons I've learnt working with agents is just how much design matters in software and isn't just a matter of craftsmenship pride. When you see the codebase implode after the tenth new feature and realise it has to be scrapped because neither human nor AI can salvage it, the importance of design becomes palpable. Before agents it was hard to see because few people write code like that (just as no one would think to make a curtain rod load-bearing when building a structure).
And let's not forget that the models hallucinate. Just now I was discussing architecture with Codex, and what it says sounds plausible, but it's wrong in subtle and important ways.
I mean, if you properly define "do well" as getting a first draft of something interesting that might or might not be a step towards a solution, that's not completely wrong. A pass/fail test is verified feedback of a sort, that the AI can then do quick iteration on. It's just very wrong to expect that you can get away with only checking for passing tests and not even loosely survey what the AI generated (which is invariably what people do when they submit a bunch of vibe-coded pull requests that are 10k lines each or more, and call that a "gain" in productivity).
Most importantly, this isn't hypothetical. We see that agents write programs that after some number of changes just collapse because they don't converge. They don't transition well between layers of abstractions, so they build contingencies into multiple layers, and the result is that after some time the codebase is just broken beyond repair and no changes can be made without breaking something (and because of all the contingencies, reproducing the breakage can be hard). This is why agents don't succeed in building even something as simple as a workable C compiler even with a full spec and thousands of human-written tests.
If the agents could code well, no one would be complaining. People complain because agent code becomes structurally unsound over time, and then it's only a matter of time until it collapses. Every fix and change you make without super careful supervision has a high chance of weakening the structure.