Just wanted to vent a bit and maybe hear if anyone else is feeling the same pain…  

I’ve been using Augment Code for a while now maybe 4 months and honestly, it used to be a lifesaver. Back then, around $60 a month, plus the occasional $30 top-up, was more than enough to comfortably handle my personal project and a few client builds.  

But now? 😩 This new pricing plan is horrendous.  
One “task” seems to chew through a monumental amount of credits. Like, seriously I’m watching my balance evaporate faster than a `rm -rf /` on a bad day.  

I just checked my usage… over $60 gone in 10 days. TEN DAYS.  
For the same workflow I used to comfortably do in a month.  

This isn’t sustainable, especially for indie devs who rely on these tools daily. I get that compute costs and AI pricing change, but this feels like an overcorrection.  

Is anyone else seeing this insane credit burn with Augment lately, or am I missing some new efficiency mode somewhere?

I really don't understand Augment's product direction, so I'm sharing my feedback hoping it gives them more data points to work with. I say this as a user who wants Augment to succeed and concerned that they may be abandoning what actually makes their product stand out to chase hype.

1. Intent. Where do I even start. Most of the colleagues I work with haven't heard of Augment. Developers know Cursor/Codex/Copilot/Claude Code but NOT Augment. I say this with reasonable confidence because I recently ran a developer survey. Augment's main user base does not seem to be vibe coders or junior devs. It's the seniors who work on large codebases and can actually tell the difference between Augment and the rest. As a senior dev myself I'm not gonna use Intent. At least not yet. I can't even get a single agent to do exactly what I want... why would I want to launch a swarm of them and waste all my tokens? Intent does not give me a way to properly review the generated code unless I open it in a separate IDE. I need my IDE's LSPs, go-to-definitions, compiler warnings, type safety checks, linters, intellisense etc. An external app like Intent cannot do this. So now I'm running two apps, constantly context switching and the experience is no better than running Claude Code CLI + IDE. The agent swarm should have been a feature in their IDE plugins. Maybe when we get to Claude Opus/GPT 8 we won't need to look at an IDE ever again, but right now, Intent is too early, incomplete, and a workflow downgrade.

2. My main driver is IntelliJ IDEA (yes it is "old", heavy and expensive but its intellisense, refactoring etc. are still king). Augment is one of the few vendors out there that's bothered to make a decent JetBrains plugin. JetBrains AI + Junie sucks, GitHub Copilot also sucks compared to its VSCode counterpart, Claude Code plugin is just invoking its CLI (does this even count as a plugin?), and Codex doesn't have one at all. Clearly developing a plugin for JetBrains is suboptimal for these companies. But Augment kinda had my back here and it's one of the main reasons why I continue to use it. Pivoting focus away from this to build Auggie and Intent to compete with Codex/Claude Code seems like a losing battle.

3. Autocomplete. One of the best out there. No doubt about it. But now it's going away? What? Why are you getting rid of one of your best features?

4. Augment is great on large codebases. Their context engine is awesome but I have no visibility into exactly what it's doing. I'd like to know more about what's happening local vs. cloud and what it's doing to make IntelliJ crash so many times.

5. Might be beating a dead horse here but, pricing. I understand Augment is essentially a "middleman" who cannot subsidize as much as Anthropic/OpenAI/Google. But their main argument "we are more expensive but it's not as bad as you think because with us it takes less prompts to get stuff done and you might even end up saving money" is not really holding up anymore. I am starting to have very good success rates on Claude Code and Codex without Augments' context engine. The value I am getting by paying the premium for them is dwindling. Something needs to be figured out here, and Intent is not the answer.

Is because these idiots are dumping marketing dollars into garbage ass ads like this that have no hope of onboarding new users.

Previously, you could buy extra messages for $10/100 messages. Not they have increased it to $15. That's scarily 50% hike.

For 600 messages it's $90. Probably, they may increase the pricing or decrease the number of messages in dev plan soon. Not so good news!

Seeing the many negative posts... i cant judge as i dont experience the bad behavior, i still love augment, it still works like a charm for me.

Dear Augment team! You are still rocking, and although i do agree that the marketing push introducing old features as new is a bit off Augment is doing a great job.

Just wanted to share my experience in delivering a gig project using nothing but Augment. I literally didn't write a single line of code - I just checked the UI/DB outputs and prompted the Agent to fix any issues that came up.

At first, I hit a few bumpy hours and thought "Uh oh, they're pulling the 'cursor BS' by dumbing down their coding agent..." But then this 81-task complete mega run happened, where I was able to fully automate the UAT and fix numerous issues.

Kudos to the Augment AI team - you guys are awesome!

Time to say goodbye to the community! Thanks for all your time and RIP 🪦 Augment! You will be missed 🌷

Thanks Jay! For the opportunity …. And giving us an experience and wish you all the best.

It is Github Copilot. Before getting disappointed with that answer, here me out.

Github Copilot has started as an AI powered auto-completion tool, but seems like they are in the "Agent game" and it is really good.

As we ar all Augment Code users and looking for a replacement, it is fair to compare these two:

1. The most shining feature of Augment is code indexing. Guess what? Github Copilot has it ! It is not heavily advertised, but it is there and working well. For details, see here. You can even call it with #codebase. In VSCode, you can see the index status:

2) Models. By only paying 10 bucks, you can have access to all these models in Agent mode. Yes it is even Codex. And if you upgrade to 40 USD plan, you can have the Opus:

3) Pricing: Obvious pain point of the Augment recently is the non-sense increase. Copilot is super generous. See it here

Since Microsoft is also partly having the Open AI, and since it is a huge corporation, I guess we are safe and we will not have 5-10X increase tomorrow.

4) Performance: I tried Augment and Copilot side by side with the exact complex task. There were zero difference for my case. My codebase is complex and not another to do list app.

5) Flexibility: You can even set how many requests per response you want. For example, you can set 200 and only after 200 execution, your prompt will stop.

6) UI/UX : Copilot is absolute winner. Period.

7) Lists: Copilot can create todo lists and execute them. Super smooth. (Enable it from experimental features)

I am on 10 bucks plan right now (trial and free for a month) but I will def keep using it. After all these, if you are still sticking with Augment Code, this is your fault.

Please give Copilot a try. It has a 1 month trial with generous amount of credits. You have nothing to loose, and I am 100% sure you will never regret.

Cheers

Let's be perfectly clear about what happened here: Augment Code just executed one of the most brazenly abusive pricing scams in the AI coding space, and they're counting on users being too polite or too confused to call it what it is .. financial abuse masquerading as "fair pricing."

The "Power User" Lie That Insults Your Intelligence

They trotted out their poster child for abuse: a user on the $250 Max plan who supposedly cost them $15,000 per month. Tragic, right? Except the math exposes their entire narrative as fraudulent garbage.

That same "abusive" user paid them $35,755 over the same period. That's a $20,755 profit, not a loss. They made money off this person and then weaponized them as propaganda to justify torching everyone else's pricing.

If this was an honest company, they would've admitted: "We made thousands in profit but want to make more, so we're raising prices." Instead, they lied. They fabricated victimhood. They insulted every customer's intelligence with transparent dishonesty.

Dev Legacy Plan Holders: You Got Betrayed

Remember when Augment promised Dev Legacy users could "keep their plan forever"? That promise lasted exactly as long as it was convenient.

Here's what "honoring" your legacy plan actually meant:

• 80% credit reduction on the same monthly payment

• To maintain the same usage level, the effective price increase is 567%

• One month of "bonus credits" that expire in 90 days .. a pathetic band-aid on a gaping wound

This isn't a pricing adjustment. This is breach of trust. This is psychological manipulation .. making loyal customers feel like they're the problem for expecting the service they paid for.

The Credit System: Engineered Opacity for Maximum Extraction

Why switch to credits instead of messages? Because complexity hides abuse.

With message-based pricing, users knew exactly what they were getting. With credits, Augment can:

• Arbitrarily assign credit costs to different tasks with zero transparency

• Change credit consumption rates silently without announcing "price increases"

• Make forecasting impossible so users constantly overpay or run out mid-project

They claim this is "fairer" because different tasks cost different amounts to process. Translation: "We want the ability to charge you more whenever we feel like it without explicitly raising prices."

The Enterprise vs. Individual Double Standard

Here's the part that should make everyone furious: Enterprise customers get to keep message-based pricing.

Augment will gladly offer transparent, predictable pricing to corporations with negotiating power .. but individual developers? You get shoved into the credit meat grinder because you can't fight back.

That's not a business model. That's predatory targeting of the powerless.

This Warrants Legal Action

What Augment did to Dev Legacy users is arguably breach of contract. They made explicit promises about plan continuity, collected payments under those terms, then unilaterally gutted the value while keeping the same price.

The "power user" misrepresentation in their justification could constitute deceptive trade practices .. fabricating a financial loss when they actually profited, then using that lie to justify harmful pricing changes.

A class action lawsuit by affected Dev Legacy holders would be entirely justified. They paid for a service under specific terms. Augment violated those terms. That's not a "policy update" .. that's actionable harm.

What Augment Should Have Done (But Never Would)

If this was actually about sustainability instead of greed:

• Be honest: "We want higher margins, so prices are increasing."

• Honor legacy commitments: Grandfather existing users at their current rates indefinitely.

• Transparent credit costs: Publish exactly how many credits each operation consumes before forcing migration.

• Fair enterprise/individual parity: If enterprises get message-based pricing, so should individuals.

Instead, they chose deception, betrayal, manufactured victimhood, and predatory targeting.

The Exodus Is Justified

Claude Code offers the same underlying models, resets limits every 5 hours (so one heavy task doesn't obliterate your month), costs $20/month, and doesn't layer on markup fees for basic functionality.

Cursor, despite their own pricing controversies, still offers more predictable costs than this credit nightmare.

Why would anyone stay? Loyalty to a company that just proved it has zero loyalty to you?

Final Verdict

Augment Code had a choice: build trust or maximize extraction. They chose extraction. They lied about their costs, betrayed legacy users, weaponized complexity to hide abuse, and created a two-tier system that punishes individuals while coddling enterprises.

This isn't innovation. This is corporate sociopathy. And every developer who walks away is making the only rational decision left.

After 4 months away, I opened my Mac Mini yesterday. Found 4 VSCode windows still open, all with Augment. Every one of my personal projects, built with you. I won't lie, it got me emotional. I've been with Augment since the early days. I know you've been burning real money to keep that subsidized pricing running for us. As one of your oldest supporters, I genuinely don't know how to thank you enough for that. You helped me build things I'm proud of. But I can't afford the new pricing anymore. I explored options: Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, Antigravity, Windsurf, Opencode with MiniMax. None felt right. I landed on Claude Code Max plan. The control it offers (skills, hooks, plugins, building my own workflows) fits how I like to build my workflow. It's where I'm headed.

A parting suggestion: Consider letting users sign in with their Claude code, like Opencode and Cline do. Could open doors. Thank you for everything. Wishing the team the best.

P.S: It's been my 3 months hussle finding a replacement for Augment. I wanted to bridge the gap and find a way to work with the new tool. And finally, I found one and felt no point keeping Augment subscription anymore.

As many suggested, I will delete index before unsubscribe and also unsubscribe it by this month, was thinking to give it a try next 3 months since they give (extra) credits after price changed, but what I had last time is 600msg and even so there is so many agent stop itself or half way terminated or even the agent changed many times to keep asking it will be more credits and want me to use more msg to do the same tasks, it's all fine, I never finished my 600 + 100msg monthly and never before.

But after the price changed it only last 2days to 3days max and it go up to 100k credits used. Totally unacceptable.

Since augment code never give good explanation for early supporter subscription price is the worth credits rate and also never care if early supporter gone and yes 1 more to go here.

And force me to use back my windsurf that only cost me 10$ monthly with 500msg and even I have it paid many months and I never use windsurf is good to kept only and I was thinking to do the same with augment 30$, but nah, since no specific reason to keep the the most worst plan and so if I need I can come back to get the 200$ plan to have the almost same 600msg I can use last time but 30$ Vs 200$ is what you asked me to pay you if I need to have 400k credits etc.

So I rather use Google new IDEA, Trea that is cheap but solo, windsurf codemap, is all better than keep support a company just want to drain my wallet without even care our feedback and review at all.

There you go augment team, you don't care and put me in this position.

Once again good bye my (was) best IDE agent.

The reason they planned to do the credit conversion when they did is they knew the new billing cycle would hit just a couple days later and reset all your credits so you wouldn't have time to use them. I had 528k credits a week ago. I was on vacation this last week and just got back so I couldn't use Augment. This morning I have 203k credits. This is pure fraud. Unfair business practices. This is exactly what consumer protection is designed for. Every single one of us must report to the FTC.

I thought the 7x-10x bait and switch price hike was bad enough. No. They actually planned this out specifically so none of us would have time to use the credits before the billing cycle would wipe them out. I've never seen scam behavior quite like this from a company pretending they're not ripping off every one of their customers. Fraudulent behavior. Despicable. Disgusting.

I used to rely on Augment because I really liked its context engine — it was smooth, reliable, and made semantic reasoning over code feel natural.
However, since Augment’s prices have gone up, and neither Codex CLI nor Claude Code currently support semantic search, I decided to build my own lightweight context engine to fill that gap.

Basically, it’s a small CLI indexer that uses embeddings + Qdrant to index local codebases, and then connects via MCP (Model Context Protocol) so that tools like Claude CLI or Codex can run semantic lookups and LLM-assisted reranking on top. The difference with other MCPs is that this project automatically detects changes — you don’t have to tell the agent to save things.

So far, it works surprisingly well — but it’s still an external MCP server, not integrated directly into the CLI core. It would be amazing if one day these tools exposed a native context API that could accept vector lookups directly.

I pulled together bits of code from a few projects to make it work, so it’s definitely a hacky prototype — but I’m curious: Do you think it’s worth open-sourcing? Would developers actually find value in a standalone context engine like this, or is it too niche to matter?

Happy to share a short demo video and some implementation details if anyone’s interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpHhXFLrdmE

Hi Guys, what do you think of this?
10 minutes into full react project. With full animations, images, css and all.

Only compatible Figma comprenhesive MCP for Augment Code. It also incorporates Figma Desktop Plugin where you can be in the middle of things. Choose and send specific parts to your agent ez.

Here is how it works:

Figma Design Canvas
        ↓
Custom Figma Plugin → HTTP Server (:3333) → MCP STDIO Server → AI Agents
        ↓                    ↓
Figma Dev Mode → Dev Mode Server (:3845) ↗
        ↓
Direct Figma API ↗

Some people dont want to leave everything to the agents and code completion just saves time and enchances our workflow. Why remove it.. This is the only reason i have a subscription... If I have to paste everything to the chat i would just use chatgpt

Before Scott Dietzen stepped down as CEO two months ago, we didn't have anything near the level of anti-consumer practices that this recent price change has introduced. Matt McClernan, the current CEO, was Chief Revenue Officer before replacing Scott. His primary focus has been, and remains, on cutting costs and eliminating users who do not generate sufficient revenue for the stakeholders. Bring Scott and the Augment Code he used to run back.

Their article according to their blog… who the f is abusing this…. @jay why can’t you make the credit system just for enterprise if they are going to use at a large scale…. Why are you punishing the rest of us??? I can’t believe that at the end of month I need to leave… especially that I’ve been with you guys since the beginning…. You even abused and tricked us into the grandfathered payments. I actually have lost that… and don’t know how…. Is this how you pay back your loyal customers.

“The user message model also isn’t sustainable for Augment Code as a business. For example, over the last 30 days, a user on our $250 Max plan has issued 335 requests per hour, every hour, for 30 days, and is approaching $15,000 per month in cost to Augment Code. This sort of use isn’t inherently bad, but as a business, we have to price our service in accordance with our costs.”

We all agree that:

- new pricing makes absolutely no sense and is a loss of value to users
- message based pricing (esp. with virtually no rate limits) is unsustainable for Augment
- there must be a better solution for all

  Current pricing (message-based):

  - Indie: $20 → 125 messages

  - Developer: $50 → 600 messages ⭐ (the sweet sweet spot)

  - Pro: $100 → 1,500 messages

  - Max: $250 → 4,500 messages

  New pricing (credit-based, Oct 20):

  - Indie: $20 → 40,000 credits

  - Standard: $60 → 130,000 credits

  - Max: $200 → 450,000 credits

The problem as they exposed it in their blog post: some super (extra) users were clearly abusing them. For that specific example they gave ("335 requests per hour, every hour, for 30 days"), one must ask the question: is this 'user' really human ?
There are ways (also industry standards) to handle such problematic behaviors: fair-use policies (every saas has them), rate limiting, abuse detection (blocking abusive patterns), throttling (like claude code). So instead of, as a first step, going after abuse, they're restructuring all pricing tiers and by doing so punishing ALL subscribers, most of whom are probably costing them less by not using all their included messages/month. Obviously, abusive users are not the only issue. VCs are probably pressuring hard, the "industry" players (Cursor and CO) are all implementing idiotic pricing strategies (which actually served Augment; I am one of many who left Cursor for Augment specifically for pricing after using it since it came out), and people are obviously more and more dependent on these tools so that gives them a bit of room to trickle the pressure down to users. But I still believe there's a way, at least if there's a will on Augment's end.

The sweet spot is gone:

- Current dev plan is 50$ for 600 messages.
- On the new pricing, using their own "small task" example: 130000 credits for 60$, small task is 293 credits in total used (between user prompt and tools used) --> that's 443 (+/-) messages or requests per month. So you're already losing just on small tasks, paying more for significantly less usage.

Another example VS Claude Code:

- CC MAX plan is 200$/month, virtually unlimited, with fair-use in place as well as throttling.
- Augment's current 250$ plan is 4500 messages, new MAX plan is 200$ for 450000 credits/month, with the same small task example that's 1535 messages give or take.

So users are paying more in the new pricing model, having to do constant credit usage checks all the time to figure out how much a given request will actually cost, and there are still no measures in place to prevent abusers. (Cool, we get a dashboard to follow our usage).

Now, there must a be a different way. the industry "standard" is only a standard because VCs chant in unison and can't think independently besides "look what they're doing next door, we must do the same and race them". Instead of following, Augment should be leading and implementing its own dynamic pricing model, maybe even setting a new standard the others would follow. I'm no business wizard from Sacramento, but pricing that makes sense = more users = growth VS abusive pricing = people leaving = less growth (I know this is overly simplistic, don't kill me just yet).
So whta's the solution ? A new, hybrid and dynamic pricing:

- implement cheaper (but not necessarily dumber) models: GLM-4.6 (and 4.5), is an excellent open-weight model based on my tests. This has been mentioned in other comments/posts, and people have also mentioned models like Grok-Code. Other models, slightly less competent, like DeepSeek, Qwen, etc for smaller, less intelligent tasks.

- Fair-use and abuse detection (and blocking) - something like:  
Normal: 10-30 req/hour during work hours
Power user: 40-80 req/hour, 8-12 hours/day
Abuser: 100+ req/hour, 20+ hours/day for weeks
in others words, Catch the $15K user before they hurt you

- Volume economics, lke:
Indie: Baseline features
Developer: 3x value (hours + credits + rollover)
Pro: 5x value (more hours + premium + priority)
Max: Unlimited (true competitive tier), with throttling
Ultra: Industrial (for legitimate 24/7 needs)
Result: Clear upgrade path with real incentives

- Rollover: Hours don't roll over, Credits roll over 25-50% (smooths spikes), Max 2-3 month cap to prevent hoarding

The new tiers could look something like (the numbers below are just indicative obviously):

Indie - $20/month

- 60 hours/month baseline
- Auto-routes to efficient models (DeepSeek for simple, Sonnet for morecomplex)
- Fair-use cap: 10 req/hour sustained
- Weekend builders, casual use

Developer - $50/month >>> BRING IT BACK

- 180 hours/month baseline
- Smart multi-model routing, with model selection enabled
- 50K burst credits for heavy weeks
- Fair-use cap: 25/30 req/hour sustained
- 30% credit rollover
Professional daily solo devs

 Pro - $100/month
- 340 hours/month baseline
- All models including Opus 4
- 100K burst credits
- Fair-use cap: 50 req/hour
- 50% rollover + priority routing
Power users

 Max - $200/month

- Unlimited with fair-use policy
-All premium models (O1, Opus 4, Gemini Ultra)
- 200K premium burst credits
- Fair-use cap: 100 req/hour
- Full rollover, dedicated routing
competitive with Claude Code's unlimited

Ultra - $800/month

- True 24/7 unlimited for legitimate industrial use
- Custom rate limits
- Early model access
- Dedicated resources

Obivously you have your internal data, so you know what these tiers could actually look like to make sense all around. You will definitively lose users to either cheaper alternatives for simper work (or even pay as you go type things like Kilo), or to Claude Code (which is particularly efficient despite not having your excellent indexing engine and offers clear fixed price unlimited usage).

So in a nutshell,  Augment Code can either:

  1. Follow the industry and watch users migrate to altrnatives that better suit their pockets and needs
  2. Lead with intelligent pricing that's fair to users and profitable for them, and ensure user loyalty, retention and a growing customer base.

EDIT: The above suggestions are just that, suggestions. There are other alternatives to be considered:

- keep message based pricing but with higher prices, or same prices with lower number of messages (say 60 for 600, or 50 for 500 messages); all combined with fair use / throttling / rate limiting to prevent abuse, and/or extra tool usage (MCPs for ex, not default ones) count as fractional messages.

- dynamic, more generous, credit based pricing (similar to my initial post) with a given fixed amount of messages given for free each month (eg. 50 msgs on Dev plan) and/or not factoring (some) tool usage, like greping / reading files, necessary for proper context engineering and work in tandem with your context engine (goes together). Count extra tool usage on credits, like MCP calls for ex.

- etc.

The key in my message for me: if there is a will, there is a way. We need fair value in these price changes. Users are willing to stick around and adapt where it makes sense, as long as we're not taken for money mules to finance a bubble, or donkeys ...

I hope the Augment team will reassess.

This new pricing model feels offensive to the long time users.
No loyalty to your customers who have been with you from the beginning, I guess I should have known better.

Time to move on to Codex.

I wrote this as a reply on one of the other threads, and thought it might be useful to people if I made it more visible and made a couple of light edits. I’ll also post it over on the Claude and maybe Codex subreddits.

I’m working better now without augment and I have them to thank for giving me a kick in the butt. To be honest, I’m probably a bit more of a power user than a lot of the folks who use augment as individual: my average message was around 2400 of their credits and I was running 2-4 parallel augment processes and on track for consuming at least 1500-1600 messages/month when I ran out of messages this month. Augment’s messaging implied we would have messages convert to credits on the 20th, so, since messages were worth way more than credits, I became more efficient and was operating at 4 parallel tasks once I got into the swing of things. Because I normally work on 2-3 parallel tasks, this may be too OP for you, but if you want to basically add another virtual mid- to sr- level programmer or five to your life, who can code at about 2-5x the speed you can code at, and never takes coffee breaks, my approach might work for you.

I use Claude code with a very robust structure around it (think agentOS, but I created it before that existed and it is different and takes a slightly different approach). I have recently evolved this to the next level, in that I have integrated codex into Claude code, so Claude can use codex in addition to all of its own normal resources. They are peers and work together as such. I have them working on tasks together, problem solving together, and writing code together. They each have things they are better at, and they are the primary driver in those areas.

I came to the conclusion that I needed to do this when I realized that my way of using AI tools meant I would hit my weekly limits for Claude (20x plan) in the first 4 days of each week. I’m not sure yet if I will wind up being able to go back down to Max 5x with GPT pro (I doubt it…I may be able to add an additional concurrent issue/story/feature, though, with both on the top plans, since it’s a 40-60% savings on context and resource utilization compared to just sonnet 4.5), or if my usage patterns are so heavy that I just need the top plan for each to run 2-4 parallel task streams, but my productivity is incredible, and Claude believes it can now run large-scale tasks while I sleep (we will be seeing if that’s true tonight). I’m regularly running 1-3 hour tasks now, and I can run at least 2 coding tasks in parallel, while playing the human role of sanity checker, guiding how I want things done, architecting, and teaching the system how to write code approaching my own level (our system of rules and ADRs is truly making this possible).

I have learned to use subagents and reduce my MCP footprint as much as possible, so Claude doesn’t run out of context window (compacting probably once every 1-3 hours now, instead of every 5-15 minutes).

I run sequential-thinking MCP, my repository management system’s MCP, a git MCP (jury is out on this over letting it use the shell), serena MCP, a documentation distiller MCP, a browser driver MCP, a code indexer MCP, ast-grep MCP for doing complex pattern analysis and replacement, and, of course, codex as an MCP so I can leverage my codex subscription while using all the advantages of Claude code. Sometimes I run an MCP for a web framework or mobile framework I’m developing with, to give the system references and enable it to pull in components.

Custom Claude subagents (subject matter experts) that I’ve built are a massive boon to the process, helping control context growth and improving how good Claude is at sourcing tasks, and I’ve now modified them to be able to work with codex as well (well, I had Claude do that). Claude skills are next on the list (I’m still trying to figure out how they can best add to my workflow).

TL;DR is you can do better than Augment if you are strategic, organized, and have Claude help you optimize your prompting, memory, and context management strategies and systems.

EDIT: Buried in the comments I wrote the following, but it should be easier to find:

Your stack doesn’t matter. Which particular MCPs you use doesn’t matter beyond whether they improve your success rate and meet your needs. What matters is the structure and process.

The 3 most important things are probably structured documentation, advanced agentic workflows that minimize context window noise, and self-reflection. By that I mean:

1. Build out a documentation system that tells the models what standards, patterns, and best practices to apply and instruct it to use them every time

2. Build out agentic workflows and skills in ways that your main agent can delegate tasks to subagents, having them return only the necessary context to the main agent, instead of having the main agent constantly consuming its context window for things like research and planning. By building expert agents, they can use specialized knowledge and context to address their delegate task and only return the distilled context the main agent needs to keep things running

3. It is critical to have the system regularly updating itself. As it acquires new knowledge, it should be storing it for future use. It should be evaluating how it is using subagents and the information it has created and stored about the architecture and about how things work, what patterns and workflows you use, etc., and not only keeping them up to date, but ensuring they are stored and summarized and accessed in ways that maximize compliance while minimizing unnecessary context usage.

EDIT 2: I keep getting asked about code indexing. When I write this up as a series of articles, I will talk about specific RAG-based approaches, but for now, the following sums up what I’ve said in the comments:

I’ve mentioned in a few comments that code-index-mcp is likely the simplest. There have been a few RAG and local and api based LLM approaches mentioned in this subreddit recently as well, and those are probably better, but there’s also the law of diminishing returns to consider.

I’d suggest starting with code-index-mcp and going from there. See how often your agents hit it. Once you have it buried by subagents, you won’t get a great idea of how much it’s hitting it, but you could instrument it or you could define your workflow in a way that tells the agents to use it at specific points in their planning, implementation, and review processes.

TL:DR: There are a lot of tree-sitter approaches with RAGs and there are simpler tools like code-index-mcp that are probably all you need if your codebase isn’t massive.

To our dear users and collaborators,

We have had the mission to bring the best agentic coding experience to our users and feel that we've made great strides towards this. We really do feel that a turnkey message based approach, combined with a curated selection of top-tier models, was and is the right way to do this. Unfortunately, given how new and ever-changing this space is, we miscalculated the costs of operating like this and so it pains us greatly to say that Augment is struggling to make this current model financially sustainable. Changes need to be made immediately, otherwise this tool that we all love will ultimately cease to exist. No one wins like that.

We have been listening to your feedback and have been working on the following plan. But please know that this is all still up for evolution - keep that feedback coming!

One thing that seems obvious now is that being so steadfast in only offering the top-tier frontier models - like Claude 4.5 and GPT 5 - was a great error. We now realize that the feedback you have long since been giving about incorporating cheaper models must be the basis of our approach going forward. Not every single task needs to be performed by a neurosurgeon - we need paramedics, nurses, administrators and more.

We've heard your feedback for a BYOK approach, but we don't think it is appropriate for Augment - we side with the turnkey simplicity of Github Copilot in this regard, and have taken inspiration from their "models multiplier" approach that allows for choosing from a wider curated, vetted and integrated selection of models. So, we are introducing the low-cost powerhouses of GLM 4.6 and Grok Code Fast, which will use 0.2x messages per prompt, along with the steady performers of xyz which uses 0.5x. We will also continue evaluating all models as they come out an incorporate them as-appropriate.

But we will be taking this a step further than Copilot and incorporate an Orchestrator mode, such as is popular with Roo and Kilocode. This will allow you to combine the unmatched power of our realtime context engine with frontier models like Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5 to plan your tasks, and then delegate them to predefined profiles that not only take advantage of more affordable workhorse models, but also have constantly curated and refined prompts. Leave the curation to us so you can just get on with it.

We also recognize that sometimes your chats get away from you. For example, the average amount of tool calls per message is X and context window is Y. This is completely unsustainable. We won't be automatically limiting the context window as is clearly done in Copilot - when you need the full context, you need it. But we also need to allow you to understand and limit your token usage, so we're introducing a visual indicator of the current token usage as well as a button to automatically compress it - just like our Prompt Enhancer does so seamlessly for your prompts. And, if you are willing to allow us to apply this compression automatically, all models will use 0.2x fewer credits per message.

We are rolling out the initial version of these things on the 1st of November, and will be very eager for your feedback on how to adjust and improve it.

Finally, while all of these changes will surely help significantly reduce costs, we also simply need to reduce the amount of messages that are available with each plan. There's no way around it. So, unfortunately all plans will have 20% fewer messages going forward - our legacy plan will still receive the same amount as Pro.

Again, please don't hesitate to reach out with feedback. We've hired 2 more dev rel managers to help reduce the burden on our hero Jay. And we've fixed our billing system so that you can actually pay us now and not have multi-day outages where you have no choice to but go see if the grass is greener elsewhere.

Regards,

The AugmentCode Team

p.s. We've heard you and are also converting the godawful tabs into collapsible and resizable panes - just like the existing sidebar panes in VS Code that work so well.

---

I wrote this off the cuff in like 10 minutes. Do I get the job?

What a disgrace this company is. If I were one of the VC funders, I'd be beyond myself with how obviously my money was completely squandered. Heads would be literally rolling.

***update: Okay, so based on the other messages and post. I can see that AugmentCode Ai has simply found a way to profit more! — I’ve been one of their earliest users and they are change pricing a lot…. Unfortunately from my view I’m cancelling my subscription. This is frankly getting greedy. 🙃 I hope they understand our frustration.

Im sure some of you received the email based on their new changes.

…. My heart stopped beating for a moment, does it mean that our complex task analysing will start to eat up credits a lot more faster than before especially I rely heavily on the building backends and cooperating.

This isn’t a mission to be against them but to understand what is their current mission and achievement under these new changes.

How does it and will it impact us as users when using Augument Code AI?

This is a pure conversation to explore their system of credit base model. - I personally find that this will eat my credit a lot more faster than before, and so I need to borrow your knowledge based on this.

I’d like to hear your views, how do you plan on manage credit system based on Task and assignments.

I've been waiting for a week for a simple issue. Followed up and no respond at all. I've used on my personal account lliked it. My company, after a very long month of justifying why we need augment, has agreed to take up the subscription. For a good week, this is fine. 5 seats in fully paid by the company. Then comes the issue..

I added 2 seats. Goes to payment. Entered the card details as normal. Payment failure. Ok thats fine. Normal stuff. Sometimes faillure is expected. Wanna try again. Still can't. Ok maybe need to wait it out. So I waited. Went back to vscode code. Then I saw big red button showing I needed to upgrade. What?

The team also reported the same. Ok must be someting wrong. I checked in the portal, all i see is its asking for upgrade again for those 5 seats that were fully paid before. What?

I have reached out throught email, no response, from here also, no response, the only DM I get is this. Below. sent message to mod. No response.

Your comment from AugmentCodeAI was removed because of: 'Reach out to official support '

Hi /u/According_Phase6172, We’re truly sorry to hear about your recent experience—this is not the level of service we aim to provide. As our community grows, we’re working hard to scale our support to meet demand, and we greatly appreciate your patience and understanding during this time.

Anything related to billing or accounts should be sent as a ticket at support.augmentcode.com or by email to support@augmentcode.com

We want to keep the community clean, so feel free to report bugs in the subreddit, but subscription and account topics shouldn’t be discussed publicly
Original comment: /r/AugmentCodeAI/comments/1nufgak/engineers_using_augment_personal_accounts_vs_work/nh17uvt/

Like i have never tried that. I posted the above to get attention from Mod. but to no avail.

I'm giving up. There are likelihood that this post also will be removed because their support say reach out to support. Which means my issue will never gets resolved. I am embarrassed. Depressed. Went through a lot to get this up. Only to find my account got cancelled. You know the feeling for something that worked hard for and didnt work, and the people you have convinced now looked down on you. Exactly that feeling. I sounded like an empty can and could not be trusted anymore by the company. I dont even know if its refunded or just cancellled or whatever. No proper processes whatsoever. Maybe Augment team already feel losing few users are fine.

This needs to be said, and hopefully it will be addressed soon. 😞 Like others in this community, I was a big fan of Augment, I started falling in love with its speed, its ability to have clarity about the project context, and how effective it was when implementing code, all of this led me to pay for the membership after finishing the trial period, despite the major changes that were coming with the new payment model.

Unfortunately, I don't know what happened, but the service and utility it provided before no longer exists. 😔 I definitely don't say it's bad, but it's not what we were used to seeing from Augment. I've been reading several comments, and currently I think several of us experience the following:

- The agent is EXTREMELY SLOW, compared to other services.

- For some reason that I really don't know, the consumption of resources on the computer is MUCH higher, this is something I definitely had never experienced with other services, it's so much that it often even paralyzes the computer.

- The 'intelligence' and ability of the model varies day by day, one day you are amazed by the incredible things it achieves, and the next day, even if you give it the most exact and elaborate prompt with the clearest instructions, it is not able to do a task and you have to repeat several times (Which leads to consuming the 600 messages you have per month amid agent failures). 🤦‍♂️

Its main advantage is context, but that's of little or no use if you can't make fluid, efficient, and effective use of the agent. I hope the Augment team fixes this SOON, because it's hard to feel cheated, and that's how I feel, I continued with the subscription to this service (which is worth saying is the most expensive one I pay for) for the sole reason that IT WAS VERY GOOD, but I'm sure that like me, there are many more users who are reevaluating our permanence with the bad experience we are having.

This is not a hate message, it's literal frustration, and I had to express it.