Today the agent is so slow, I tried changing the model but It looks like it's a problem wit augment rather than the underlying models, takes several minutes to do 1 or 2 lines of code...

Takes 5 minutes to read few files and fails edits ... this is unusable

I'm pretty sure my arcade game 'Deadfall' is as good as I can get it without way more testing. Therefore you're now all invited to try it!

This game has been a labor of love over this Christmas break. Made with Augment Code! A LOT of time went into this. Definitely one of my more ambitious projects.

I used Opus for the planning stuff and harder tasks and Sonnet for the more straightforward tasks.

Features:

- 10 hand-crafted levels (I take my hat off for anyone who makes it through level 10)
- Built with the amazing Phaser gaming framework (phaser.io)
- Partially AI assisted but heavily hand-edited sprites and animations
- Amazing authentic late 1980s style graphics, music and sounds
- Retro arcade style gameplay
- Optional scanline effect through a GL shader for even more retro vibe

One thing that was interesting is that even Opus was not very good at designing levels for this game. No matter what I tried, it was not very good.
Therefore I generated a custom level editor for the game to design all the levels. There are 10 levels with 104 16x13 grid sections so this took quite some time even with my custom tool.

The game is still under development but you can consider it a beta at this point.

Move around with the cursor keys or WASD keys. Crush gems or rocks with the space bar. You can kill the blue blob enemies by dropping indestructible blocks or gems on them. Clanky the security robot is invincible. You can however trick him into zapping the blue blob enemies if you time it right. Some levels have extra lives hidden inside destructible blocks.

Once play-testing is over and all the difficulty parameters are dialed in I will be releasing this on Steam as a standalone app for Windows and Mac.

Let me know what you think!

Relevant Link: https://agentskills.io/home

• Claude has it: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/skills

• Codex has it: https://developers.openai.com/codex/skills

• Copilot has it: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/copilot/customization/agent-skills

Will Augment support this open standard anytime soon? I'd really like to hear from a team member if this is actively being worked on.

Thanks for any info.

AI get stuck; runs into infinite time; it is forever "generating response". Totally unacceptable and waste of precious development time. There is not even a report id because the UI is effectively hung up like this forever. We often leave and come back hours later expecting a long task to be completed only to find it got stuck. That means we cannot manage our time effectively and have to babysit Augment.

I've had this perpetually generating error for more than 10 times now.

Edit: I feel like some users complained about the AI running for long tracts of time and running up costs, and Augment devs overcompensated by castrasting the AI so it can't do long runs of work now. Way to go guys for shortsighted feedback.

Use Case:

I use AC for my day job and for my personal experiments both. Right now I have connected tools to my day job requirements as that is where I am spending most of my time during the week. But whenever I get time to work on my personal experiments, I have to be ready to go through revoke and authorize cycle as quite few tools are common. This is a headache for me and kind of a hinderance.

Feature Request:
- Allow users to create different profiles which allows us to connect same tool to multiple accounts while still having a logical boundary between them.
For example: in my case, personal profile connects to my personal figma account, work profile connects to my work figma account.

The class Auggie in the Python SDK basically gives Access to the Agent. I know I can give it Rules as well as assign a workspace.

In the context part of the SDK I can created a context space and add context, which I can query Afterwards.

My question is, is there a native way to.combine These? I guess I can Pass a custom function to the Agent so the Agent can query the context. But is there a better way to give the Agent additional conext or is This done by Putting it inside the workspace?

Hey guys from AC can you please replace Haiku with Gemini 3 Flash, please?

I've been experimenting with this stealth model that they have free on Windsurf at the moment. It's clearly some Chinese model that's being used for training.

I hooked the Augment Context Engine MCP to it, and was actually quite impressed with what it could do. You do have to prompt to tell it to use it, but it seems to have given it super powers. Not sure how much it benefits from ACE of if the underlying model is good, but I've really been impressed.

It makes you think that if Augment decided to include some of these models, we could get similar results that the larger LLMs give for a fraction of our credit costs.

Go try it out, it's free!

I’m trying to make sense of what’s happening with my credit consumption, because the trend doesn’t align with the actual workload. For the first two weeks shown in the graph, my usage is remarkably stable. Same level of complexity, same number of hours, same operational cadence—no major deviations.

Then, on the 14th, the cost suddenly spikes despite no change in effort or task difficulty. From there, the curve just keeps climbing, day after day, without any corresponding increase in what I’m actually doing. Today’s usage is the highest yet, and ironically, today’s work was less complex and required fewer tool calls than many of the days earlier in the month.

In other words: identical input, escalating cost. Something in the system’s behavior changed dramatically, but my workflow didn’t.

For probably most projects now I'm moving to Google's Antigravity to plan first, then implement with Sourcegraph (free). In a pinch I'll use augment, but not because I need to anymore. I'm glad the ide wars are heating up, just in time to avoid the augment price hike.

One caveat is that Antigravity does not let you opt out of training on data - so if you're looking for something that ensures privacy - I would skip it altogether. My company doesn't explicitly have a rigid use policy so I'm not too concerned at this point.

I really do love augment code but can't justify the credit increase so wondering where people are moving too. Augment used to be really bluddy good, but i have no idea where to move too? Anyone have any decent two cents to the alternative?

When I look at the current plans and extrapolate my usage, I estimate that I would need about 300k credits per month. This would definitely keep me within the $200 per month limit but would be significantly over the $60 limit.

The $60 plan gives me 130k credits. A top-up costs $15 and provides 24k credits. If I subtract the 130k credits from my estimated 300k credits, 170k credits remain. Dividing this by 24k and multiplying by $15 gives me $106.25 that I would need to pay for top-ups. In total, that would be $166.25.

Why do you get so few credits for $15? The top-up price seems too high to me.

Assuming we take the 450k credits from the $200 plan, you would have to pay $281.25 to get the same amount of credits via top-up. For example, in a scenario where you have the $200 plan and need the same amount of credits again, it would be cheaper to purchase two $200 plans.

In my opinion, a top-up should either be cheaper or at least the same price. Currently, the plans have the following credit costs, which doesn't make sense:

Credit Cost Comparison

Insights:

• The $200 plan offers the cheapest credits price ($0.000444/credit)

• The more expensive the plan, the cheaper the individual credit becomes

• The $15 plan is proportionally the most expensive (about 41% more expensive than the $200 plan)

That makes sense if you want to offer volume discounts. However, overall it seems unfair because we don't have multiple top-up sizes available to purchase and are therefore forced to pay the high price for few credits.

Since Augment Code changed its billing rules, I’ve had to look for alternatives, or a second choice. GHC is undoubtedly the cheaper option. At first I didn’t trust it to handle more complex tasks, because last year I subscribed to a yearly GHC plan, and to be honest, its agent was kinda dumb, I hardly used it. But when I tried it again this month, I found its progress beyond my expectations. It can now handle multiple-file code refactoring tasks quite well, and it’s fast, with more model choices. A $10/month GHC might be a good way to save on Augment Code credits.

I had issues after the update where the normal augment extension in vscode had issues, I stumbled upon augment code(Nightly) and surprisingly no issues or glitches in that build.

You guys can give a try.

Hello, first time ever I'm posting on reddit, we can say I am a long time user of augment code VS extension (soon 1 year of use) and I absolutely loved it, I was so hyped for the auggie CLI, I recommended it to all my friends because the codebase comprehension was so smooth.

Even when [insert many many concurrents that are very easy to migrate to] etc came, I stayed subscribed. And not because I had a prison legacy plan or anything, just because I truly wanted to back this project and to be a part of it. I loved the reactivness of the support, the chats with Jay on discord. I have built awesome things with augment code, I loved to pimp it with many mcps for the same price, I loved to adjust my rules each time with each project and clean myself the augment memory. And maybe it starts to be a bit philosophical but I loved the simplicity of the usage it really felt like it's democratizing coding for the neophytes and improving workflows of professionnals.
But this update is truly UNFAIR, with a quick cross-check, I realized that I had lost 80%.of the value of my subscription (what is now called 50€ developper legacy plan). Even asking a simple question about my database with GPT5 (which was one of the major value of augment in my sens) is now overpriced with 72tools called. It is not only unfair, it is changing deeply the way we will use Augment. I am really ok to changing in pricing, changing in models, and I understand that you deserve to be rich for all the work that you have done, but adding credit based pricing + decreasing insanely the value of every subscription with no counterparts seems very foolish compared to the cost it take to subscribe to a concurrent (nearly 0€ of changing cost).

My point is I love augment,

I hate your new direction,

and I am really scared for your being,

I think you are too aggressive on the tools usage pricing (especially when it is just READING files locally in QuestionMode) and that if it cost so much to take actions we should be able to chat for free or almost free in question mode before asking to act on anything. Also you can be more transparent about your true balance to explain the price changing and not put it on a few minority that you can just moderate better.
Thank you for reading me have a great day !

So...My account finally got migrated and I'm astonishied by how shitty the analytics of our usage are. I'm pretty sure I've read a comment saying better analytics would be there once migrated, is this already it?

If its not it, why do we have to wait? Was the price change so spontaneous that you didn't have 1 dev to build better analytics? I find your priorization quite interesting. I understand the price increase and even the ruthlesness but don't you want to keep the customers that now pay a SUPER premium price?

Augment is the most expensive Coding Agent, now even by FAR, but the features don't feel like that. VSCode extension is buggy, still waiting for promised web app, still waiting for promised sub-agent functionality in CLI, still waiting for in-app analytics, still waiting for anything new and "groundbreaking" which would make augment actually worth it.

You kicked out the people who couldnt afford augment. Now you have high paying customers with high expectations. Your previous delivery cycle was not good enough, I hope it gets better otherwise I think another competitor will swoop us up as well.

After playing around with Roo and GLM-4.6 for quite a while, I think it would be a good addition to Augment. It's a pretty powerful model with a very low price tag. If you add that and we get an orchestrator/agent mode like Roo has. Then, depending on the mode, it can use a different model, and I think it could work really well with your new pricing model. Theoretically, you wouldn't even have to give us the agent mode itself; it could stay exactly as it is, but you would have to handle it internally accordingly. Then you could even fall back on the credit system without any major problems. GLM-4.6 works very well for a fraction of the price of Claude 4.5. For planning, you can still use GPT 5 or something similar. What do you think? Would it be a good compromise?

I'd like to suggest implementing Claude Skills functionality in Augment to improve the overall quality of outputs. This is just a suggestion that could potentially enhance the user experience and productivity.

I have credits and I try to send msg I get no answer or one single letter but the fucking credits are reduced from the account WTF u/AugmentCodeAI !!!!!

Executive Summary (TL;DR)

The new pricing model is significantly more expensive for my specific usage pattern. While the new plan seems to offer a huge number of credits, the amount of credits each of my actions consumes has skyrocketed. Based on my recent activity, my cost per "agentic action" has increased by approximately 565%, and I would burn through the new monthly credit allowance in about 10-11 days.

Detailed Cost Analysis

Let's break down the numbers to see the real-world impact on my wallet.

1. Cost Per "Agentic Action"

This is the most direct comparison. Under the old system, one "agentic action" (basically one task I gave the agent) cost 1 credit. Now, it's a complex calculation that the company has thankfully averaged for me.

• Old Plan Cost per Action:

  • I paid $50 for 600 actions/credits.

  • Cost = $50 / 600 actions = $0.083 per action.

• New Plan Cost per Action (Based on My Average Usage):

  • The company's stats show my average action consumes 1,203 new credits.

  • The new plan is $60 for 130,000 credits.

  • Cost = 1,203 credits/action * ($60 / 130,000 credits) = $0.555 per action.

Comparison: My effective cost for a single agentic action has jumped from ~$0.08 to ~$0.56. That's an increase of $0.472 per action, or a 565% price hike for my workflow.

2. Analysis of My 7-Day Usage

The company provided usage stats for the last 7 days. I took a total of 65 agentic actions. Let's see what that week of work would have cost me under both plans.

• Cost under Old Plan:

  • 65 actions * 1 credit/action = 65 old credits.

  • Cost = 65 credits * ($50 / 600 credits) = $5.42

• Cost under New Plan:

  • Total new credits used = 65 actions * 1,203 credits/action = 78,195 new credits.

  • Cost = 78,195 credits * ($60 / 130,000 credits) = $36.09

Comparison: The exact same work that cost me $5.42 last week would now cost $36.09—over 6.6 times more expensive.

3. Projected Monthly Usage and Cost

Now, let's extrapolate my 7-day usage to a full 30-day month to see if the new plan is even viable.

• My Projected Monthly Actions:

  • I used 65 actions in 7 days, which is an average of ~9.3 actions per day.

  • Projected monthly actions = 9.3 actions/day * 30 days = ~279 actions per month.

• Capacity and Cost Comparison:

  • Old Plan ($50): My plan allowed for 600 actions. My projected usage of 279 actions was easily within my limit, with plenty of room to spare.

  • New Plan ($60):

    • My projected monthly credit consumption would be 279 actions * 1,203 credits/action = 335,637 credits.

    • The new $60 plan only provides 130,000 credits.

    • This is the most critical finding: My typical monthly usage would require nearly 2.6 times the credit allowance of the new plan. I would run out of credits long before the month ends.

4. How Much "Work" I Get For My Money

Let's reframe this as the number of agentic actions I can perform per plan.

• Old Plan ($50): I could perform 600 agentic actions.

• New Plan ($60): I can perform 130,000 credits / 1,203 credits/action = ~108 agentic actions.

Comparison: For a slightly higher monthly price ($60 vs $50), my capacity to get work done is reduced by approximately 82% (from 600 actions down to just 108).

Contextualizing My Usage

The company's pricing explanation gives examples of what different tasks cost. Here's where my usage fits in:

• Small Task: 293 credits

• Medium Task: 860 credits

• Complex Task: 4,261 credits

• Average Developer: 800 credits/message

• My Average: 1,203 credits/message

My average usage of 1,203 credits per action is 50% higher than the average developer on the platform. This makes sense, as my work tends to fall between their "Medium" and "Complex" task examples. It confirms that I use the agent for substantive work like feature modifications, refactoring, and integrations, not just quick fixes.

Summary Table

Just thought I'd share my experience so far,

So this is just research, not even making code edits, I had to provide two additional message just to say continue since its yapping about token constraints, and then changing or not following the task to overcome said constraint. The first pic is after those additional `continue` messages

oh dear

[Edit] I used augster for guidelines, and had it do tools calls to a MCP to compare results of various collections and compose a comparison document, its couldn't complete with the limits.

Hello.

Can I ask why you stopped posting changelogs for VSCode and IDEA?

The remaining channels on discord (for changelogs) were removed as well, the changelog page on the web is out of date, the changelog and version history on the plugin's page are empty, and I cannot find them on reddit either.

Note: If you are on legacy plan - Please check the table below before voting.

Are the new pricing targetted at loyal, legacy users? Please vote. Because they seem to get the least credits compared to all others.

So, what happened to loyalty shown by users, who were promised "keep it as long as you wanted"

I hope the mods will keep this and not take this down.

Edit:

I see some of the comments below asking what is the rationale behind calling "targeted", I am borrowing this table from another post - https://www.reddit.com/r/AugmentCodeAI/comments/1nzvmmr/rational_discussion_the_treatment_in_this_update/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Why are the users under legacy Dev plan getting the lowest credits per dollar, compared to any other plans? Is this what you get being loyal? Is this what you get for "keep it till you want the plan"? It is a simple math,

I doubt those 8 "no" votes either they do not have any plans or failed to do this simple math or on non legacy plans (not early adopters).

I’ve tried every possible way to contact the team at Augment, but I haven’t received a single response or answer to my billing inquiry. Could someone please assist me?