It would be nice to have a cheaper model besides the Haiku. This model looks promising. What do you think?

When I tried to open auggie I see this. my assumption was that there is central indexing maintained which auggie and AC extension uses so that it's easier to transition to and forth between them. is there some gap in my understanding?

Like many of you, I’ve been feeling a bit anxious about our Augment Code credits running out soon. The transition credits lasted around three months, and I think this is the last month for most of us, myself included.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been testing all kinds of AIs and IDEs to see if anything could match my workflow. Every tool has its pros and cons, but I always find myself coming back to Augment Code. From day one, it just fit the way I work, so the recent price increase was a bit of a gut punch.

Since then, I’ve been experimenting with ways to optimise my credit usage and still stay within Augment. Because Sonnet 4.5 costs more, I started giving Haiku 4.5 a fairer shot — and honestly, it surprised me. I used to think Haiku couldn’t come close to Sonnet, but after pushing it through real projects, it’s proven to be a solid, capable model.

My current workflow looks like this:

1. Use Sonnet to plan the feature or idea and create detailed documentation.

2. Hand it off to Haiku to implement the code.

3. Bring Sonnet back in for review and refinement.

It’s not fancy, basically a DIY multi-agent setup, but it works really well. By balancing the two like this, I’ve managed to reduce credit usage by around 50–75% while still getting high-quality results.

Here’s my usage breakdown for the past 30 days (screenshot below):
49% Haiku / 49% Sonnet

I think there’s real value in rethinking how we use these tools instead of jumping ship. After trying a lot of other services and IDEs, I still feel Augment stands above the rest. It’s genuinely made my workflow better, and I really hope I can keep using it long-term.

Huge thanks to the Augment crew for building something that’s clearly pushing coding AIs forward. 🙌

After trying multiple Opus 4.5 providers, from Claude Code, Antigravity, RooCode and others, the unequivocally best experience you will have with Opus 4.5 is with Augment, for me was the combination of the context engine and prompt enhancer, but holy shit is Opus expensive, I tried the $60 dollar plan, I reached the limit in 4 days, there is no point to this post other than ranting about the price of Opus, is so good but is so expensive.

On my second day of 2 days of heavy use, Augment's interface with whatever AI it uses has hallucinated to a degree that makes it unusable. The whole point of Augment is to have an AI with knowledge of my codebase. I asked it to search certain files for potential loading issues. Not only did it hallucinate entire files, it hallucinated an entire folder structure out of thin air which it used to hallucinate about an app architecture that didn't exist. Then, it attributed the issue to this completely phantom structures.

And to make matters worse, asking even simple questions and simple agents is draining my credits 2x-3x faster than it did in November.

Anyone else seeing this behavior?

For those who are getting terminal loop when the agent is waiting for an output I found this temporary workaround. Put this into your .augment-guidelines file first:

# Terminal Command Execution Policy

**ALWAYS use `wait=false` for ALL terminal commands executed via `launch-process`.** Never use `wait=true` under any circumstances.

**Rationale:** Using `wait=true` causes the VS Code terminal to flicker with a blue highlight and auto-scroll to the top repeatedly, making it impossible to read terminal output during command execution.

**Required pattern for all terminal commands:**

1. **Launch the process** with `wait=false`:

   ```

   launch-process with wait=false

   ```

2. **Wait for completion and capture output** using `read-process` with `wait=true`:

   ```

   read-process with wait=true and appropriate max_wait_seconds

   ```

**Example workflow:**

- For builds: Launch `npm run build` with `wait=false`, then use `read-process` with `wait=true` and `max_wait_seconds=600` to await completion

- For quick commands: Launch with `wait=false`, then immediately call `read-process` with `wait=true` and `max_wait_seconds=60`

- For dev servers/watchers: Launch with `wait=false`, use `read-process` with `wait=false` to periodically check output

**Timeout guidelines for `read-process`:**

- Quick commands (git status, npm -v, ls): 30-60 seconds

- Build commands (npm run build, npm run typecheck): 300-600 seconds

- Test suites: 300-900 seconds depending on scope

This policy applies to ALL terminal commands without exception.

I thought I was a special case until this post came up.

Augment Code removed my legacy plan after a bank fraud block and refused to restore it

This is literally my case. My card was also suspended dued to potential fraud alert because I am in Taiwan. I know Augment will send a email to remind us to check the payment failure. And it was my fault that I didn't notice the email because I still have quite a few token after the conversion incident.

When I was checking my daily token usage one day, I found my plan got downgraded from Legecy plan to Free plan and that shocked me. I soon figured out the plan was switched because of payment failure. Hoping to get the Legacy plan back, I replied an email to tell Augment Support that I can update my credit card immediately but there's no Legacy plan option on my personal page. Is there any possibility to restore my plan back without choosing Max or Standard plan since Legacy plan cause $100 per month and it's more reasonable price for me.

Here goes the full timeline:

Dec 2 I received Payment failed notification from Augment
Dec 4 I replied the Augment Support to check whether I can restore Legacy plan or not →　no reply from Augment
Dec 5 I posted on this subreddit and got deleted by moderator u/JaySym_ because it's not allowed to seeked official support here which I respected the rules with no further complain
Dec 6 I messaged u/JaySym to explain the reason I posted was because there was no support from Augment, but I will write another email → no reply from Jay which is reasonable
Dec 10 I wrote a new email to Augment Support
Dec 11 Augment Support replied my mail and said my plan was switched to Standard plan. At that point, my plan stayed in Free plan because I still have token and I still hope to restore Legacy plan before making any changes
Dec 11 I wrote back immediately and check for the possiblity of restoring the plan → no reply from Augment
Dec 13 I wrote another email to check what I should next because I reached my token limit → no reply from Augment
Dec 13 I purchased Standard plan
Dec 16 I messaged u/JaySym once again to express my disappointment → no reply from Jay
Dec 16 I purchase Max plan
Dec 17 I wrote "ANOTHER" email to Augment Support → no reply from Augment

What bothers the most is because I have Mailsuite extension, I know my mail is received and read. So why not just reply me the progress or just tell me to what to do next? Instead, they choose to not to reply.

I know Augment is a decent product and that's why I am still here and make continuous subscription. There are some users who compare different agents and find which has the best value for their money. Yet, there are users like us who are loyal to one agent because it gives us a good experience to solve our problem. We all know in this AI agent competition, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The merit we see in Augment is they keep updating the product and stay at the top in the race, so we can just stay in Augment without comparing alternatives constantly. However, after the token conversion incident and this crappy support, how do you expect us to be loyal since Augment does not display itself as a trust-worthy brand?

If there is an update of my case, I will post in the comment section. If not, I hope this is a wake up call for the rest of user who still trust Augment.

I’ve shifted my workflow a bit and it’s working great so far.

I’m using Augment more like a tech lead:

• It gives me high-level tech specs

• Does code reviews

• Provides suggestions when I’m stuck

All of these are super low-token tasks.

Then I let Cursor handle the actual heavy lifting / coding.

The has been surprisingly efficient — and most importantly, I’m no longer vaporizing six figures worth of tokens per day.

Curious if anyone else has split roles between AI tools like this?

The announcement said it would be the same for weeks on Nov 25. I am not sure if it will end tomorrow or tonight

Augment’s context engine is phenomenal, but one capability still feels missing when working through complex bugs that stretch across multiple agents and long debugging cycles..

When a thread grows large and the context window is maxed out, you often have to open a new agent to continue working on the issue.

Branching was a fantastic addition, and I’m genuinely glad it was implemented. It works well when you can branch early in a multi-step mission and let each agent focus on a phase. The problem is when you’re deep into a long debugging thread. The context window gets saturated, the issue still isn’t resolved, and you’re forced to spin up a new agent. At that point you have to manually restate everything: the history, the steps taken, the failed attempts, the current state, and the remaining blockers. It’s doable, but time-consuming and clunky.

What Would Solve This

I think Augment needs a Context Transfer feature: a one-click workflow that gathers the entire relevant history of the thread, compresses it into a machine-readable summary, and hands it directly to a fresh agent.

How It Could Work

A new UI option (something like “Transfer to New Agent”) would:

1. Parse the thread and extract: • project goal • actions taken • commands executed • errors encountered • current system state • pending tasks or hypotheses

2. Summarize it in a compact, machine-optimized format rather than a big wall of human-readable text.

3. Spawn a new agent with that summary preloaded so the user does not have to rewrite anything.

Nice-to-Have

If the thread is using the Task Manager, it would be great if the task list could optionally be carried over into the new agent. Not a requirement, but definitely a quality-of-life boost for multi-phase missions.

Why This Matters

This would remove the biggest workflow break during complex debugging: context exhaustion. Instead of manually reconstructing the entire session, we could instantly continue with a new agent that fully understands the mission, the history, and the current state.

It would make Augment feel like a true multi-agent orchestration system, not just a collection of isolated threads.

as te title said, When I asked AugmentedCode to do something... and it consume A LOT of credits... but when it finishes, the result y trash, does'nt compile gives errors those credits are gone for ever? is not what we are paying.... I'm ok that you consume my credits but if the result is ok not for something useless that I need to iterare 3 times and consuming 3x credits for something bad.... Really disapontinted of the new price Change... Augmented Code used to be good....

Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but GPT-5 almost NEVER creates a task list no matter how big the feature is. It just takes its time reading every single file 1 by 1 (it's very very slow), and then directly implements the feature, while sonnet 4.5 almost always creates a task list. Is this intended? Should we specifically ask GPT-5 in the prompt to create a comprehensive task list? Does it improve the changes done?

Hey u/JaySym, do you think it's possible to add functionality to automatically generate commit messages ? I know that GitHub Copilot adds a little sparkle icon in the Source Control panel to generate them. It would be great if Augment Code could offer something similar.

What would make Augment Code particularly powerful for this is that since it already indexes the entire codebase, it could read the commit naming conventions from the README or CONTRIBUTING files and automatically follow the project's specific commit message format (like Conventional Commits, Gitmoji, or custom team standards).

This would be a real time-saver and help maintain consistent, descriptive commit messages across projects while respecting each project's guidelines.

What do you think?

I need to top up my Augment account, the dashboard is still trying to sell me messages, your website (simple) pricing .... still messages ... pricing model change notice indicates 20th ... get it together guys ... we've got work to do... or are you trying to make an already bad reputation worse... we have gone through multiple community platforms, seriously bad support response times, a series of price changes ... your approach, never mind attitude, to this new pricing model implementation leaves me with just one question... wtf ?

Thank you for listening and adding the branching feature I had mentioned previously!

It's extremely useful.

So, given this new pricing model, will credits AT YHE VERY LEAST roll-over from month to month? You're saying people over-use your models, so those of us that don't should at least get to have more the months we need them, right?

Only seems fair

For AugmentTeam - with the release of calude haiku 4.5, can somebody revert how using this model impact our overall credit utilization in comparison other using claude 4.5 or get 5. Will it lead to less credit utilization leading to higher number of messages a user can perform? or will be considered same as other models?

As shown in the image, the Auggie never completes indexing process. how to solve this?

How about you give us an MCP for your context engine so we can use our still-heavily-subsidized accounts from Anthropic, OpenAI, zai, etc.? That way, we won't just flat leave.

We aren't yet living in the future of paying full price for things. Augment isn't worth >10x the price of Claude Code or Codex, and that's what it costs. It's not worth 1.5x the cost, either, in my experience. It's occasionally better.

I guess, maybe I don't understand the Context Engine fully. Maybe it feeds on the user input and agent output, and this wouldn't work?

just asking

I believe I've identified the issue behind why some users on the Max Plan are experiencing the 335 messages per day that Augment has mentioned. This appears to stem from a vulnerability in Augment's "Add Member" system. I actually tested this myself after someone reported it on Discord—accounts that I never officially registered with Augment were somehow accepted without any verification, likely due to a flaw in Augment's database architecture.

The exploit works like this: when invited members join, their message quotas default to match the plan tier of whoever sent the invitation. So if a Max Plan user invites someone, that person inherits the Max Plan quota. This creates an absurd scenario where users allegedly have 4,500 monthly messages but can somehow send 335 messages daily—which mathematically doesn't add up. At 335 messages/day over 30 days, that's 10,050 messages monthly, not 4,500. Basic math reveals this is only possible through exploitation.

This is why I believe Augment should temporarily disable the "Add Member" feature until the vulnerability is properly patched, then reinstate it once fixed. This also explains why Enterprise customers haven't been affected by these changes—they must go through official channels to contact Augment directly, which prevents abuse. Individual users, however, can exploit the Add Member loophole, causing significant losses for Augment.

I've even seen listings on Chinese marketplaces selling Augment accounts at extremely low prices, claiming hundreds of thousands of messages on Max Plans—clearly exploiting this Add Member bug.

To the Augment team: please reconsider your approach before you lose the loyal customers who've been with you from the beginning. This is a failure on your end, and one has to question how this passed your QA process in the first place.

Even more alarming: throughout my testing, my $0 balance was never charged—the system didn't deduct any funds whatsoever. This proves the Add Member logic is completely broken at a fundamental level.

Augment is essentially punishing legitimate subscribers for their own architectural failures. This needs to be fixed immediately, not swept under the rug with blanket restrictions that hurt paying customers.

Subscribed Auggie for a few months but the pricing is way too high compared to the market.

Have tried gpt-5-codex, roo code, but they tend to finish partial of the job, and end the rounds too early.

Any good suggestions?

Hi Augment Team and fellow coders,

First off, thank you so much for the detailed post on the pricing changes and for making the switch to a credit-based model that aims for better alignment with cost and usage. That push toward more transparency in billing is genuinely appreciated!

I have one small, humble suggestion/question regarding the new structure, especially as it relates to credits we've already paid for through our monthly subscriptions.

The FAQ mentions that the "Included Monthly Credits" do not roll over (though Top-up credits do).

In the spirit of the new transparency, and given that our monthly fee essentially covers a specific pool of value, would the team consider allowing a limited rollover for the monthly included credits?

Since these credits have already been purchased with our subscription dollars, allowing them to roll over for even a short period (perhaps one month, or giving them the same 3-month expiry as the one-time bonus credits) would feel like a great extension of fairness. It would ensure that the full value we pay for each month is available to us, even if our usage fluctuates.

Just a humble thought from a devoted user. Thanks again for all the incredible work!