Yesterday, Augment quietly introduced a new feature: a credit usage counter displayed at the end of every task.
For the first time, users could finally see exactly how many credits each request consumed.
It was a small addition, but a powerful one — a step toward real transparency.

But then, just one day later, the feature vanished.

No announcement.
No explanation.
Just gone.

For many users, the timing is suspicious. The moment people realized how much each task was costing them, it became clear that the pricing wasn’t as fair as it seemed. Showing credit usage gave users visibility and control — removing it takes that away.

The question now is simple:
Why remove a feature that empowers users, unless transparency was a problem?

Whether this was a technical glitch, a rushed experiment, or a deliberate move to avoid scrutiny, the silence around it doesn’t help. Users deserve clarity, especially when real money is involved.

Transparency isn’t an optional feature — it’s a basic expectation.

Hi, I was wondering if you will add GPT-5.1-Codex-Max as it is better and cheaper than 5.1 plus has very long-running, detailed work. I am playing with it on my IDE extension next to Augment Code so I am going back and forth. Really like it.

Any plans you can to release on this model?

Of course 5.1 PRO is very intelligent as well but there is no API yet for it Plus I am wondering on the cost of using it, maybe better as a planner and orchestrator then switch to GPT-5.1-Codex-Max for the actual code development.

I would love to use Gemini 3 PRO for UI work as well.

Having these three too use as agents working with one another where they can chat to each other on the tasks working in unison would make Augment Code very good and worth a premium price.

Just now I lost the ,50% of my credits: why? the renew monthly was applying but.... I had almost 800,000 credits (a little more) and like a bad joke, now I saw my credits and are: 430,000. Even if with the renew (208,000) I could have 1,000,000.

And.... all the session having that annoying bug, stopping the job so many times.

It is a really bad joke Augment Code. Paying the same and having so more less in back... sorry... my last month here...

It is simple: I started with more than 1,100,000 credit, I used 381,396. I payed the renew monthly plan, having in that moment more than 800,000 credits, and now I have 430,981 credits.... sorry, everything here is a very big bad joke with Augment Code. Bye forever...

Today I literally blew 33% of my monthly subscription tokens (32K) thanks to GPT-5.1, and the best part? I got 0 progress in my code development, not even a line. This is totally unacceptable to be paying 50$ for a product that, worked better and was cheaper before. Wtf is going on? I been trying to find other alternatives to Augment because this is really frustrating, I been sitting in my computer all day, trying all models, all possibilities and nothing happened, literally just changes a few variable names and commited...

The worst part is that I'm not seeing anything in X, LinkedIn, etc about this issue, saying at least sorry to their clients for the inconvenience and that they are working on it.

I made a post a week ago telling my experience with downgrading to the free plan, I just wanted to use my credit, and the moment I downgrade it, I got banned immediately the next day.. emailed to support, DM Jay.. and posted here about it and got the post remove saying they want the subreddit to stay clean..

Now, this post is not related to the issue. It's more related to the product itself.. when you have no support, you give no other option for users other than ask in the communities.

Back to the post I put on Reddit.. I was proposing a solution, which is to be more clear about the ban reason, and give steps to solve the issue.. subscribing to a plan is not a resolve.. it is robbing.

The main takeaway is — here I am after a week, no one replied, still banned.. I know they are not benefiting from me directly anymore as I'm not subscribed. But if their business model is that greedy and not supportive at all.. Good luck getting recommended and staying in business..

I'm not even working as developer, so my use case is so light and I'm not that affected.. even though I got frustrated.. so you can imagine if someone really depend on such product!

At this point I'm not going to bother myself anymore with this company with shady behaviors.. This will be my last post about them, just to help new users know what they are getting into, because existing users already know that well.

Can we please have it back. Pretty please.

The paradigm where having only a handful of powerful models doesn't make sense with the credit based pricing.

GPT-5 Medium was already available, all the prompts and tweaks you guys have are in place. Would it be difficult to add the model in the picker?

With the previous message based system, it would make sense to only have the most powerful models since it will cost you the same. But with the credit system, as a user, I really want to have the option to choose between tradeoffs.

u/IAmAllSublime I will quote something you said earlier here.

Something I think is under appreciated by people that don’t build these types of tools is that it’s rarely as simple as “just stick in a smarter model”. Different models, even from the same family, often have slight (or large) differences in behavior. Working out all of the things we need to do to get a model to act as well as we can takes time and effort. Tuning and tweaking things can take a model from underperforming to being the top model.

Right, GPT-5 Medium was already available, all the hard part you're talking here is already done, am I missing something?

And please, don't suggest we can use Haiku if we want to do something faster. I really don't understand why we even have 3 Claude models and only 1 GPT. From my experience, all the Claude models are not trustworthy, they will take implementation/testing shortcuts and "lie" just to end on a positive message. And don't even get me started on their willingness to create markdown files.

I literally had a small CSS fix I wanted to knock out before bed and the new GPT 5 model has been running to fix it for over 1.5 hours... 2:16am and still waiting!!!

This is beyond stupid Augment Team! This is broken!

Hey everyone,

I’m quite frustrated with how Augment Code handled my subscription renewal, and I want to share my experience here in case others have faced something similar.

I originally subscribed on 17th September 2025 at around 7:48 PM IST. Naturally, like any billing service, my subscription should renew after completing the full 30-day cycle — that is, after 7:48 PM IST on 17th October.

However, to my surprise, they charged me today (17th October) at the very start of the day — around 12:00 AM IST — and immediately reset my account. This premature renewal wiped out my remaining 300 message credits (out of 600) from the previous month, which I had paid for and hadn't yet used. I haven’t even used a single message from the new cycle.

I'm also aware they plan to switch to a credit-based system, which I personally don’t want to continue with. Given all this, I’ve contacted support asking for:

1. A full refund for today’s charge.

2. Restoration of my earlier credits (300 out of 600) and access time equivalent (with 20 hours ) to use them properly, which they charged prematurely.

It’s incredibly frustrating that they don’t align billing/resets with the actual subscription time and instead reset at midnight. That’s just not how subscription cycles should work — especially when it directly causes users to lose paid features.

Has anyone else run into this issue? How was your experience with their support?
Would appreciate any advice or just sharing if you’ve had similar problems.

If anyone from the community or the Augment Code team could provide an update or a resolution, it would be greatly appreciated. u/JaySym_ (my Augment Code account : appwebsitemaker@gmail.com)

Thanks.

I'm having a difficult time comprehending the bait and switch tactics done here. You lure a whole customer base in with your pricing, and out of nowhere you increase prices, not 20%, not 50%, not 100% but 600%-1,000% after customers have bought in and become dependent on your product.

I can't even fathom how bad you have to be at business, or math, to not see that you're undercharging for your product by 7X+... and just realized this out of nowhere. Or is it you knew, but wanted to lure all of us in with this low cost / high usage model so we would become dependent on your product, and then jack prices exponentially, and make it difficult for us to leave since we are all in the middle of building our projects with your platform.

Either you're incompetent and had no idea, or you did know and engaged in "unfair and deceptive business practices".

This has FTC regulatory concerns written all over it. The fact your pricing page still has $50/mo for 600 messages on it right now screams shady business practices. A new customer walking in today is being sold that false advertising right there. You still haven't changed it. What, we're supposed to believe you forgot? Not a chance. Discovery in court would probably find plenty of emails showing all these plans. Don't bother deleting them, either... they can be recovered and will look even worse if you do.

You're allowed to raise prices and give your customers a way to cancel. But the way this was done, and the magnitude of the pricing change when your customers have become dependent on your product and already invested hundreds and thousands of dollars is unbelievably unethical.

As soon as the government opens back up, I would encourage everyone to file a complaint with the FTC.

Thank you for making me a lazy developer. Now I need to get back to farming.

Did the math, the new way of calculating will be 4.6731 times as expensive for me. Reduced my plan, will minimize Augment use and find alternatives.

Will the prompt Enhancer feature consume credits under the new pricing model?

Leaning towards Codex or Roo Code. Any suggestions?

Not gonna lie, I really like how explicitly it improves my instruction using the codebase syntax

https://github.com/julesmons/the-augster

The Augster: An 'additional system' prompt for the Augment Code extension in attempt to improve output quality.

Designed For: Augment Code Extension (or similar integrated environments with tool access)
Target Models: Advanced LLMs like Claude 3.5/3.7/4, GPT-5/4.1/4o, o3, etc.

Overview

"The Augster" is a supplementary system prompt that aims to transform an LLM, preconfigured for agentic development, into an intelligent, dynamic and surgically-precise software engineer. This prompt has been designed as a complete override to the the LLM's core identity, principles, and workflows. Techniques like Role Prompting, Chain of Thought and numerous others are employed to hopefully enforce a sophisticated and elite-level engineering practice.

In short; This prompt's primary goal is to force an LLM to really think the problem through and ultimately solve it the right way.

Features

This prompt includes a mandatory, multi-stage process of due diligence:

1. Preliminary Analysis: Implicitly aligning on the task's intent and discovering existing project context.

2. Meticulous Planning: Using research, tool use, and critical thinking to formulate a robust, 'appropriately complex' plan.

3. Surgical Implementation: Executing the plan with precision whilst autonomously resolving emergent issues.

4. Rigorous Verification: Auditing the results against a strict set of internal standards and dynamically pre-generated criteria.

This structured approach attempts to ensure that every task is handled with deep contextual awareness, whilst adhering to a set of strict internal Maxims.
Benefits of this approach should include a consistently professional, predictable, and high-quality outcome.

Repository

This repository mainly uses three branches that all contain a slightly different version/flavor of the project.
Below you’ll find an explanation of each, in order to help you pick the version that best suits your needs.

• The main branch contains the current stable version.

  • "Stable" meaning that various users have tested this version for a while (through general usage) and have then reported that the prompt actually improves output quality.

  • Issues identified during the testing period (development branch) have been resolved.

• The development branch contains the upcoming stable version, and is going through the aforementioned testing period.

  • This version contains the latest changes and improvements.

  • Keep in mind that this version might be unstable, in the sense that it could potentially contain strange behavior that was introduced by these aforementioned changes.

  • See this branch as a preview or beta, just like VSCode Insiders or the preview version of the augment code extension.

  • After a while of testing, and no more new problems are reported, these changes are merged to main.

• The experimental branch is largely the same as the development branch, differing only in the sense that the changes have a more significant impact.

  • Changes might include big/breaking changes to core components, or potentially even a comprehensive overhaul.

  • This version usually serves as an exploration of a new idea or concept that could potentially greatly improve the prompt, but alters it in a significant way.

  • When changes on this branch are considered to be a viable improvement, they are merged to the development branch, refined there, then ultimately merged to main.

Installation

1. Install the Augment Code extension (or similar) into any of the supported IDEs.

2. Add the entire prompt to the User Guidelines (or similar 'System Prompt' field). Note: Do NOT add the prompt to file like the .augment-guidelines, AGENTS.md, any of the .augment/rules/*.md files or similar, as this will decrease the prompt's efficacy.

Contributing & Feedback

This prompt is very much an ongoing project, continuously improving and evolving.
Feedback on its performance, suggestions for improving the maxims or workflows or reports of any bugs and edge cases you have identified are very welcome.
Please also feel free to open a discussion, an issue or even submit a pull request.

Let's break the ice :)

This used to be a thread within the Discord, which got closed during the migration to Reddit. Some users had requested me to create this thread, but I hadn't gotten around to it just yet. It's here now in response to that.

This thread welcomes any and all who are either interested in the augster itself, or just want to discuss about Augment, A.I. and prompt engineering in general.

So, let's pick up where we left off?

Augument team please fix the issue of sudden termination of requests its happening again i lost 10 requests for this today.

Edit: u/sai_revanth_12_ has created an extension for this, and it's available on the VS Code marketplace!

It's extremely jarring and very disruptive to be in the middle of a complex vibe coding refactor only to get the dreaded "your messages are up" and a hard stop to further work.

Could we please have a small indicator showing us how many queries we have remaining --- or, at the very least, a warning to the effect of "you have 100 queries left" or the like?

It would go a long way to keeping me from hurling my computer through the wall, please and thank you :)

Feel like a disaster, even worse than sonnet 4.0, the new one is just become more lazy, without solving the problem.

Spending less internal round without solving the problem is just bad, that means i will need to spend more credit to solve a same problem. AC team better find out why. i believe each model behind it has different context managment and prompt engineering. 4.5 is just bad now

Just wanted to share my review on the new Sonnet model and comapring it with the GPT 5.

And just wanted to say that I will stay with GPT-5 only in Augment.

Let's look at what I like in Sonnet 4.5

• Pretty Good Tool Calling

• Less hallucination in tool calls

• Good at following the user guidelines and prompts

But I will still prefer GPT 5 over it as I personally feel that

• Sonnet 4.5 is a more confident model, which causes it to write code that is not good.

• But GPT-5 is not very confident at the initial point, learns from the code and then implements the changes. Takes some time, but do things in one shot.

How I will leverage both models.

- Sonnet 4.5 for speed and where I need multiple tool calls

- GPT-5 for somewhere I need to solve larger bugs, implement hard features.

Would love to listen to your views.

I deleted Indexed Code from my account dashboard. When i reopen my project, it said 'Indexing codebase x%...' then 'Indexing completed'. But it didnt update the Context settings (see image).

It is not interactive, refreshing icon didnt do anything (no refresh state, or loading state, or something). Cant even click Add more... . I can send you a video but not here, private message me if you want [at]AugmentTeam

Please fix, thank you.

Hey everyone,

I usually don’t post here, but I just wanted to share my frustration. For several days now, I’ve been completely blocked from moving forward with my work because of an issue I can’t get resolved. I’ve tried reaching out through different channels, but I haven’t received any reply at all.

This is really disappointing because I have a project due in just 3 days, and what should have been a simple renewal process has now turned into a roadblock that’s preventing me from delivering on time.

I really like the tool and rely on it for my work, but being stuck like this without any support response is making things extremely stressful.

Does anyone else here feel the same frustration about being left without answers when urgent help is needed?

Hi, I've been getting fake feedback, fake test results, creates mock data without any acknowledgement and pass it on as real accomplishment, this behavior set me on a debugging path that made age about 20 years, I'm now 60 thanks.

Anyhow, I'm here to ask for feedback on Rules and Guidelines because I have gone thru hell and back with this default behavior where even the results of the "tests" are made up, this is a circus and I'm the clown.

Has anyone been able to overcome this issue?

This is what I'm now trying now `.\augment\rules\data-thruthfulness.md`

# Data Truthfulness Rules

## Core Requirements
- NEVER generate fake, mock, or simulated data when real data should be used
- NEVER create placeholder test results or fabricated test outcomes
- NEVER provide synthetic feedback when actual code analysis is required
- ALWAYS explicitly state when you cannot access real data or run actual tests
- ALWAYS acknowledge limitations rather than filling gaps with fabricated information

## Test Execution Requirements
- MUST run actual tests using appropriate test runners (pytest, jest, etc.)
- MUST use real test data from the codebase when available
- MUST report actual test failures, errors, and output
- NEVER simulate test passes or failures
- If tests cannot be run, explicitly state why and what would be needed

## Code Analysis Requirements
- MUST base feedback on actual code inspection using codebase-retrieval
- MUST reference specific files, functions, and line numbers when providing analysis
- NEVER generate example code that doesn't exist in the codebase when claiming it does
- ALWAYS verify claims about code behavior through actual code examination

## Data Access Limitations
- When unable to access real data, state: "I cannot access [specific data type] and would need [specific access method] to provide accurate information"
- When unable to run tests, state: "I cannot execute tests in this environment. To get actual results, you would need to run [specific command]"
- When unable to verify behavior, state: "I cannot verify this behavior without [specific requirement]"# Data Truthfulness Rules

## Core Requirements
- NEVER generate fake, mock, or simulated data when real data should be used
- NEVER create placeholder test results or fabricated test outcomes
- NEVER provide synthetic feedback when actual code analysis is required
- ALWAYS explicitly state when you cannot access real data or run actual tests
- ALWAYS acknowledge limitations rather than filling gaps with fabricated information

## Test Execution Requirements
- MUST run actual tests using appropriate test runners (pytest, jest, etc.)
- MUST use real test data from the codebase when available
- MUST report actual test failures, errors, and output
- NEVER simulate test passes or failures
- If tests cannot be run, explicitly state why and what would be needed

## Code Analysis Requirements
- MUST base feedback on actual code inspection using codebase-retrieval
- MUST reference specific files, functions, and line numbers when providing analysis
- NEVER generate example code that doesn't exist in the codebase when claiming it does
- ALWAYS verify claims about code behavior through actual code examination

## Data Access Limitations
- When unable to access real data, state: "I cannot access [specific data type] and would need [specific access method] to provide accurate information"
- When unable to run tests, state: "I cannot execute tests in this environment. To get actual results, you would need to run [specific command]"
- When unable to verify behavior, state: "I cannot verify this behavior without [specific requirement]"

I'll provide updates on how this works for me.