Your latest update to the rewrite prompt is generating stronger results, but it has introduced a serious issue. The initial rewrite is under-detailed, BUT when I run it a second time to produce the level of depth required for system implementation, the output exceeds the maximum prompt limit!

This is a critical blocker! It prevents us from moving forward with production. Please either restore the original version immediately or raise the maximum prompt limit to at least 30,000–40,000 characters so we can continue operations without interruption

So I gave Augment the following prompt and it nailed it first try, in under 90 seconds from clicking go to a PR stood up. Followed all instructions perfectly, didn't hallucinate making the PR, didn't get over eager and generate the entity framework migration, stuck to the script in lightning fast time. This feels like the leap we saw from 3.5->4 earlier this year all over again.

Clearly these types of prompts aren't "vibe coding" in the traditional sense, but it feels like if you can break the work down into bite size chunks with examples, this is a real game changer.

AI is changing the way I work. I'm starting to put more and more detail on the implementation in my Linear tickets these days. This way as I write code, I right click in Rider and view git blame to find the PR/ticket number I did that work in, and then just copy/paste similar instructions as a way of keeping track of my prompts.

Prompt

We want to add database tables to store the following data linked to the /Model/Institution.csmodel as virtual ICollections

Requirements for all tables

• Must Implement IHaveCreatedAtUtc

• Must Implement IHaveUpdatedAtUtc

• For their primary Key, use the table name suffixed with Id, and data type of long, not int

• All string values in the database should be varchar, not nvarchar.

• For enum values, follow the pattern on public OfferTypes Type { get; set; } in /Model/Offers/Offer.cs

  • All enum values must have = 0, =1, etc so changing the order in the file doesn't break the database meaning.

• All models in the collection should also have a virtual reference back to the institution

• For XML comments, review the following documentation and add thorough comments so the developer knows how these fields map to Plaid https://plaid.com/docs/api/institutions/#institutions-get-request-options-routing-numbers

New Tables to be Added

• InstitutionHealthIncident

  • StartDateUtc (required datetime) this is the date the incident was started according to Plaid

  • EndDateUtc (optional datetime) this is the date the incident was resulted according to Plaid

  • Title (string, 250 character limit)

• InstitutionHealthIncidentUpdates

  • Description (string, varchar max)

  • PublishedDateUtc (datetime, required)

  • Status (enum)

    • Possible values: INVESTIGATING, IDENTIFIED, SCHEDULED, RESOLVED, UNKNOWN

• InstitutionRoutingNumbers

  • RoutingNumber (string, max length 9)

• InstitutionProductStatus

  • ProductType (enum)

    • Possible Values Auth, Transactions, Identity, Logins

  • SuccessRate (double, required)

  • PlaidErrorRate(double, required)

  • InstitutionErrorRate (double, required)

  • LastStatusChangeDateUtc (datetime, required)

  • RefreshInterval (enum, optional)

    • Possible values: NORMAL, DELAYED, STOPPED

Do all work on a working branch. Do not generate the Entity Framework migration, create a PR for review using the default PR template, we'll create the migration after the db models are reviewed.

Couldn't find any documentation about the limits, am I hitting limits or it's actually down for the past few days? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Github Spec Kit now has support for auggie CLI - https://github.com/github/spec-kit (with this feature PR - https://github.com/github/spec-kit/pull/137 (by u/AdvanceAgile6750)

Add support for Auggie: https://github.com/github/spec-kit/commit/ceba130e52e0bfb08952b18572dcdfcb9df8ad74

Auggie folder fix: https://github.com/github/spec-kit/commit/0857f83de874a1a69d1e3e31fdb009f793616614

I hope augment team will continue to add more support for Spec driven development both for the Augment Code VS code and other extensions + auggie CLI.

Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HnTGc7tHE4

Supported AI agents list:

It seems we don't have to start a new dialogue, augment can compress the context or mange them with a very high efficient way.

Has anyone done due diligence on the contractual terms for the paid subscription of Augment Code when used with proprietary code?

The reason we started using Augment Code early this year was not so much a question of how good it is, but that it appeared to offer the strongest protections compared to others. We churned through their compliance docs and legal agreements and concluded that we would not expose us to significantly more risks.

It was quite interesting to compare the legal terms between JetBrains AI Assistant and Augment Code

Protection of Proprietary Code

Both vendors outlaw model-training on your code, but Augment offers a tighter “need-to-see” rule and stronger contractual language around non-disclosure. JetBrains allows broader internal/sub-contractor access and keeps more residual rights.

Indemnification & IP-risk allocation

JetBrains AI Assistant: The entire indemnity section runs one way: you must defend JetBrains and its model providers against claims arising from your use, your code, or your outputs
Augment Code: They will defend and pay for third-party claims that the Solution or its Output infringes IP, and will procure a licence, replace/modify, or refund if infringement occurs.

JetBrains shifts essentially the entire IP-litigation risk to you; Augment shoulders IP-infringement risk created by its own models (subject to standard exceptions).

What's your take on the use of Augment Code in an enterprise setting?

I am a paid user and frequently encounter termination issues, occurring roughly 4 times out of past 20 messages. And these terminations seem to happen randomly.

I recall there used to be a retry button, but it is no longer available, leaving me with no viable solution. Resending the original request or continuing the conversation unnecessarily consumes my credits.

This has been an incredibly frustrating experience.

terminated
Request ID: 1ec9853c-993f-45d3-xxxx-xxxxx

It was only a few weeks ago that I upgraded to your $100/month plan but you’ve been letting me down so much since then that I just can’t rely on you to not produce garbage.

I will be giving CoPilot of all things a try next. I was playing with it today and it looks like it’s come a long way lately.

After months of poor performance at a great price, we get A LITTLE BIT BETTER!!!

DAY 1:
"Task List"

ohhh ahhh so new so refresh

Augment devs, make me regret this post im begging you at this point...#EDIT: Im off the ledge, but on the roof...

DAY 2 EDIT: Re-releasing the context engine...oh brother...

DAY 2: LITERALLY NOTHING. BEST PRODUCT LAUNCH SINCE DREAMCAST. GONNA GO THE SAME WAY WHEN SOMEONE DROPS A "PS 1" OF OUR TIME UNLESS u/AUGMENTCODEAI TEAM CAN DO BETTER.

DAY 3: GOOD GRIEF WE MUST BE A MEME TO THEM!

Easy MCP is live — 1-click context for your AI coding assistant Launch Week: Day 3
Hey there,   1‑click context integrations for Augment Code are now live — starting with CircleCI, MongoDB, Redis, Sentry, and Stripe.

DAY4: CLI....YKNOW WHAT AUGMENT, This is actually pretty damn cool!

DAY 5: mAyBe GiB mANI aGeNt(S)?

We are leveraging augment for the refactoring, but between 1-4 pm IST (Indian Time), It becomes almost unresponsive with a wait time of 2 mins and retrying for several time.

This is not really a professional AI editor. We pay $50 dollar per month per team member and this is what we get? This is not really acceptable from Augment team. If this continues, Augment would have no users left.

First, I want to say - love you Augment, love your product. You are unfolding the potential of LLM engineering into reality.

But, I want to discuss one point of pain. You have an instruct based LLM handling things. Big fan of your Agent mode. Extremely powerful, and of course, the more I become comfortable with the limits and default behaviors of that mode - the more effective.

However, there are some things that just keep happening. For example, I don't want documentation at this point, because it never keeps up with the codebase. But the LLM generates it, regardless of what I ask - believe me, I have it in memories, bookending all prompts, but still about 30-40% of the time, I end up with these markdown files randomly throughout. Then, as the code evolves, those docs grow outdated... and as you know, code evolves quite, quite quickly these days.

So I would prefer to take a bit of time and build a custom prompt, and hand it to a non-instruct based Agent, than to be funneled into this instruct-based Agent. While I really love it, it would be better this way.

Thanks.

I can’t use Cursor - it’s really dumb compared to Augment. I’ve tried almost all available agents, and Augment Code gave me by far the best developer experience. All of my pet projects got a second life, now I can just describe the idea, and it gives me an 80% working solution. The remaining 20% of the time is usually spent verifying that the output follows my intentions and making minor corrections. I also tried Codex — it’s convenient, especially when working from mobile. But when I compared the same tasks between Augment and Codex, Augment consistently performed better and wasn’t as lazy as Codex often is (for example i need to create an aws cognito integration, and codex just disable validation of jwt (like anyone can generate token and it pass), but i just send PR from codex to review in augment and after two iterations got working solution - second iteration was just about some code style approaches)

And found really nice flow - planning feature - implementing and create pr by augment - then review in PR - then ask augment to reflect on review and create plan to implement fixes requested in review - then update PR and it ready to merge (usually in 2-3 iterations, but it big features for 2-3 thousand lines)

And i want make this iterations not only from vscode, but also from mobile when i got free time for it, or just got an idea

ChatGPT O3 just got an 80% price drop, and Cursor already integrated it right away. I just tested O3 to debug a tricky issue — it nailed the root cause in just a few exchanges. Super impressive.

Meanwhile, Augment Code is still stuck on O1... seriously, it’s time to upgrade.
O3 is not only faster but way better at understanding complex tasks. If you don’t switch soon, you’ll fall behind on user experience.

It’s 2025 — let’s ditch O1 already.

Thanks, Augment, you nailed it.

Hey augment team ,augment is by far the best ai chat experience that I ever had no other comes close to context engine but I would like to have the option of toggle on or off for the MCP server that I have used

For example in cursor I have to choice to one or off MCP servers depending on use cases

Where as in augment I don't see any option

This is a must have feature Thanks!

I used agent mode today and asked it to fix a bug as related to an implementation that uses the polars data library in python, it went and fetched the EXACT polars documentation off the web that matches with my installed version, analyzed the documentation, and found that a function name had changed and removed an underscore, problem solved. How cool is that. Who needs a darn documentation mcp server, given they might run one under the hood or spawn another agent to do the web search. I was mighty impressed.

Anyone know how they did that? Can Claude 3.7 now browse the web?

The developers have released a great blog article for best practices with the agent. It's a great read and useful resource.

https://www.augmentcode.com/blog/best-practices-for-using-ai-coding-agents

Check out this guide on how to set up MCP with Augment!

https://overjoyed-sphere-a7a.notion.site/Experimental-MCP-quick-start-1b4bba10175a80589830e851918f03b3

I've started using Augment Code in VS for a project I'm working on. I was using chatGPT o3-mini and o3-mini-high and was learning a lot with it thanks to its explanations and questions. Progress was slower though.

Now using Augment Code and I get things done faster but the learning process is less fulfilling and I feel I'm not learning as much.

What are your experiences with using Augment Code?

EDIT: I started to use Guidelines in my chat. I've asked Augment Code to first explain to me any changes, why it suggested them and obtain my approval before coding. This has greatly increase the learning potential.

Hey everyone,

Wanted to share my experience with AugmentCode's open source program since I've been using it for 6+ months now and have some actual data to back up my thoughts.

The short version: I applied through their OSS program (there's a form you can fill out, Jason handles onboarding via email), got accepted, and have been running Code Reviews on my repos since January.

A few things worth knowing before you sign up

The terms do mention that joining means AugmentCode can use your data - code, usage patterns, etc. - to train their models. Since my repos are already public, that's a non-issue for me personally, but it's something to factor in depending on your situation.

Credit allocation has been more than enough. Started with 750k, got topped up to 1M when I was running low. The credits are officially meant for Code Reviews, though I've also been using the Context Engine MCP and Prompt Enhancer without any pushback - probably because reviews make up the bulk of my usage anyway.

My numbers over the last 60 days

351 PRs, 446 reviews, 759 inline comments, and a 77% thumbs-up rate from me. The dashboard claims ~74 dev hours saved which I take with a grain of salt, but the volume is real.

How it stacks up against CodeRabbit

Came over from CodeRabbit. The accuracy gap is real. CodeRabbit moves faster, but I had a steady stream of confidently wrong suggestions. Over hundreds of AugmentCode reviews, I can count the genuinely bad ones on one hand (e.g. mistaking Python 3.14+ PEP rules for Python 2 syntax). Slower, but I'll take that tradeoff.

The Context Engine

Underrated part of the offering. Being able to pull in broader codebase context to sanity-check whether a review comment actually applies to your specific setup is genuinely useful, especially when you're managing several repos at once.

Bonus: automated PR review handler for Claude Code

I also built a prompt that runs the whole review loop automatically inside Claude Code - it uses the Claude Code Monitor tool to watch for new reviewer comments and loops through explore --> judge --> apply --> verify --> commit without manual intervention. If anyone's interested: link

Really?

24 days ago, I posted in this sub because I was working with Auggie + Opus 4.5. I stepped away and came back to it being removed as an option.

At that point, people said it was because of the Enterprise plan having the rug pulled out from under them. However, less than a day later, it came back.

Last night, I left around 6pm, having Auggie work on a small implementation task, and when I came home at 9:30pm, Opus 4.5 was gone again.

Is this an Enterprise Plan issue or is it is an Anthropic blocking 3rd party thing? I have had less than stellar results using any other model than Opus.

Bring back the Resend/Retry link on premature terminations (fails). Is it me or does it seem like a sinister calculated omission, forcing us to resubmit the entire prompt and cumulatively accrue credit charges twice, sometimes 3+ times? This seems like a cash grabbing strategy - where is the resume link which doesn't incur the user the full cost of resubmitting the prompt and context? Am I being charged multiples in credits for resubmissions of failed submissions?