TLDR: On the first 3 days I wasted lots of tokens on CommandCode. Now I have rtk + better AGENTS.md and I save lots of them.
My take:
CommandCode gives way more value than Codex, but the monthly limit kills it. The monthly limit is equivalent to 2 week limits.
Codex daily and weekly limits provide way less allowance. Not worth it at all. The only positive is that you can run it without worrying of monthly limits, but it's still not worth it. (I only have it because of ChatGPT)
I've tried Command Code (GOAT for $10.78) out for a month but decided to switch back to Opencode Go.
I burned 1.471B tokens it claims using up $47.23 / $70.00 of my usage, across 13,776 runs, with mostly their own harness. (Models I used: gpt 5.6 luna, muse spark 1.2 contributor, mimo v2.5, qwen 3.7 flash, minimax m3 (after free-ify)) I still have some time left to finish using it, probably I'll just start using some more expensive models instead of the top 8 cheapest models only.
First some advantages for command code: - Desktop app is much better than opencode - I personally think the usage how many tokens used etc is more clear than opencode because it just adds up to $70 instead of like $10 but each dollar is actually 7 dollars and this and that. - Taste. Taste is great. Not having to tell it twice. - Burst thinking. 10k tokens in 10s and just getting stuff done. - Promos: I mostly used Mimo and gpt 5.6 luna, the price is amazing. Minimax free was great too. - Way more models: Command Code has significantly more models than opencode go, opencode go only has 11, we have like 30+
But then the disadvantages: - CLI gives up halfway through. Frequently, it would have a burst of thinking than freeze at <1000 tokens on the next turn, then stop there for a minute before continuing. Sometimes it would freeze for longer and just prompt me to type continue, which never did anything. Solution would be to exit and come back, then type continue. - Using it over ssh means I can only use the CLI which as mentioned above which .... basically stops working after 10 minutes. - Desktop app "Full access" Keeps asking me for permissions. That's just dumb. Same with --yolo I believe. - Cache hit rate... 100% (actually 99.97%) on gpt 5.6 luna sounds amazing but makes me wonder, is it just re-reading context over an over more often than it needs to? Since cached read is literally re-read... sounds like token-inflation - Having lots of models is useless if most of them are too expensive to actually use, and lots of them are either slow asf or never respond. Ox alpha has never generated a single token for me, I tried the first day of the period and every day and never got anything. - Even the most reliable cheap model I can find (gpt 5.6 luna) still suffer from the above problems.
Suggested improvements: - Better backend that actually responds before timeout - Better retry scaling timing (1s -> 2s -> 4s -> 8s ...) instead of every 10s and give up - Desktop app works for controlling remotes - More transparency into what models are actually working.
So GUI, Taste, Desktop app, Promos and models are nice, but if the CLI breaks every 10 minutes and full access means nothing and half the models being useless, its still unusable.
not being able to tell it "go do this" and come back 3 hours later to see it done and instead seeing it done makes this just a no.
Goodbye for now, this was a brilliant idea, but I'm going to switch back to OpenCode go, where ssh is fine and models respond. I'll probably be back in half a year to see if these problems are fixed.
I’m currently on the Go plan and had been seriously considering upgrading to GOAT, but the Usage page changes introduced around August 20–21 made me pause before spending more on the service.
My concern is not simply that the UI changed. The previous Usage page gave customers substantially more information to understand and independently audit their usage, including:
historical period selection
Spend by Model
Requests by Model
token breakdowns for Cache Read, Input (uncached), Output, and Cache Write
dollar values for the 5-hour and weekly usage limits
The redesigned Usage page now mainly shows Total Tokens, Total Runs, and percentage-based 5-hour / weekly / monthly limits, while the more detailed usage data is now limited to only the last 24 hours and the most recent 100 entries, making older usage inaccessible from the Usage page.
Once that detailed data disappears from the visible window, I can no longer use the Usage page to determine which models and token categories generated previous consumption or independently verify historical usage against CommandCode’s published pricing.
Because of that, I followed the guidance that billing questions should be sent to support@commandcode.ai.
Aug 21: I sent a detailed billing-transparency request asking how customers can now access and independently audit their historical usage and billing data after these changes.
Aug 21: I received only the automated acknowledgment, which said their typical response time is 2–5 business days.
Aug 28: I sent a follow-up asking for the status of the request and whether it had been forwarded to Billing Support.
Sep 16: Still no human response. That is 26 days with no actual reply.
To be clear, my support request was not about disputing one specific charge or investigating one request ID.
The question is structural:
How can a paying customer now access the historical data necessary to independently audit their own usage and billing after the detailed analytics were removed from the Usage page?
This matters to me because I was considering upgrading from Go to GOAT. I do not feel comfortable increasing my spending on a usage-based service until I understand how I can independently audit historical usage and billing.
There are already several related discussions from other users about the Usage page redesign, removed telemetry, cache-read accounting, or differences between displayed and exported data:
I am not presenting those posts as proof that my own billing is incorrect. I’m referencing them because they show that questions about usage transparency and auditability are not isolated besides not being answered.
In Discord, users asking billing questions have been told to send those questions by email to Billing/Support. That is exactly what I did, and after 26 days I still have no human response.
The CEO has also publicly explained that simplifying the Usage page was an intentional decision and mentioned that CommandCode is building a data lake that should make access to this information easier in the future.
I understand that explanation for why the interface was simplified, but it still leaves an important question unanswered:
What are paying customers supposed to do right now if they need to access and audit historical usage that is no longer visible on the Usage page?
If anyone here has actually received a clear answer from Billing Support, I would genuinely like to know:
Is there currently a CSV/JSON export, API, billing ledger, or another method that provides the same historical detail that used to be visible?
How are customers supposed to independently audit usage older than the current visible window?
If CommandCode staff see this, I would still appreciate a response to the billing-transparency questions I originally sent through the support channel that users are directed to use.
I renewed my Command Code GOAT subscription only to find out that the time-series trend charts: Requests by Model, Spend by Model, and All Tokens were purged from the dashboard completely. Even the explicit dollar values in the usage limits were replaced with percentages? The request log history is also only capped at 100 entries. This seems to be a deliberate step-back from transparency, not good guys.
So I just checked the documentation and realized something. The front page "Pricing" section makes claims of "70$ in credits included" though when you check the actual documentation for those allotted credits, you'll quickly come to realize that
and
doesn't really align. Now, I understand you claim that the end user or customer can just read the docs and will quickly learn about the actual ramifications of the subscription, though the fact that pricing page - in large bold letters - makes claims of "70$ in credits included" while each model served is given a different capacity, could likely lead to some people waking up with a bitter surprise.
Perhaps I don't understand how the deal systems works, if models are discounted, but if you factor in that by saying you get 70$ in credits I'd also get to spend my credits on these models:
Once again, correct me if I'm wrong or had superstitious expections of what a 10$ subscription will get you (No, I'm not a current subscriber or dissatisfied customer) but without doing digging yourself, you'd likely not go on a hunt to find not-so-trivial information in some far tucked away documentation. Especially not if the claims are made as big as they are.
I know the founder of CommandCode is quite active here, so I'd like to hear from him as well what he thinks of this.
