It's not entirely clear from that entry whether he worked directly for the CIA or through a subcontractor - which, I think, is a distinguishing point Nrsolis was trying to make. Any other sources that indicate he worked directly for the CIA?
[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-09/news/chi-nsa-p...
However, he says he worked as a systems administrator, which I don't think is a "CIA agent" - I believe (although I'm not 100% certain) that "agent" refers specifically to a spy.
The CIA doesn't have "agents", it has "officers". And they are mainly involved with recruiting and running sources of information, mainly foreign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/former-cia-worker-says-...
So what if technically Snowden was on someone else's payroll – that's how a lot of work for government agencies, covert or not, is done. And, lots of 'agents' for intelligence outfits are actually on other payrolls – often that's the whole point, serving multiple masters ambiguously! A journalist who cuts through the layers and describes the real supervisory relationship is doing their job, not carelessly getting things wrong (as alleged by Nrsolis).
I've worked for the government. We all understand the difference between employee/officer/agent/contractor.
For one thing, there are different rules and regulations. You are legally responsible as an agent in a way you aren't as an officer. Same for employee vs contractor.
The CIA is not the same thing you see in the movies. Don't get your information from Hollywood.
For example, the FBI has "special agents".
A little research goes a long way and this article doesn't even have a byline. Blogger or journalist? Who can tell anymore.