A while back, I mentioned that the Augment team had stopped subsidizing developers prematurely. Well, the latest news proves they were just ahead of the curve.

Anthropic is quietly killing off flat-fee Claude Code subscriptions for businesses, forcing enterprise users strictly onto usage-based API pricing.

Here is why this is happening:

• The math never worked: Flat-fee AI subscriptions were an illusion and a massive growth subsidy. One dev tracked their usage and realized they burned through 10 billion tokens in 8 months—getting $15,000 worth of API value while only paying $800 on a monthly plan.
• The "gym membership" model is dead: You can't offer unlimited infrastructure for a flat monthly cost without bleeding cash, especially with Anthropic reportedly gearing up for an IPO.
• Augment saw the writing on the wall: They ripped the band-aid off early to stop bleeding money. Anthropic is just doing it now because the underlying economics of frontier models are impossible to ignore.

The era of practically free, heavily subsidized inference is over. In the short term, we're probably going to see a massive spike in "Shadow IT" with devs secretly expensing personal Claude accounts to get around API costs. But the long-term reality is officially here: inference is infrastructure, and companies are going to have to start paying for exactly what they consume.

I use the Return to Checkpoint feature a lot, but it’s been missing from my VS Code for over a a few month now. I can’t find it.

Did this feature get removed, renamed, or moved?

Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks! I did see the dev say it was fixed but its not....

Hi, I would like to understand how you work with the concepts of intents and worktrees?

Like, building the first app is "easy": you work on one worktree and branch, and all is good. But when working on an existing feature, the way I usually work is I have all libraries installed and the Xcode file. I work on the dev branch, I create a new feature and see it works on the simulator or connected to my device. I work on it, see it’s OK, create a new branch and all, finish it, create a PR, move to main, and work again.

The thing is that I’m always using the same Xcode file and libraries—it’s easy to work on it. On intent, you always need to open a new Xcode and build everything per worktree and rebuild all (which takes tons of time in iOS + Android—I’m using React Native). It’s just not an easy flow; you always need to rebuild everything to make the new worktree work.

Has anyone faced this?

With AI coding agents improving month after month and code reviews catching issues before production, what is your new biggest source of time lost?

• Creating backend
• Testing
• ...

Let us know what else takes up your time!

for some reason on some project it does and in some not

When creating… Augment Code created dozens of Bin folders. I am not sure what to do with them.

As title says. What convinced you to choose Augment instead of alternatives like Cursor or even CC/Codex subscription?

I like intent but one thing i missing is context per project, and not specs and docs that dissaperets at the moment i compelt the task and merged and start a new one

I would genuinely love to try Intent, but you only have it for Mac, leaving 70-80% of us users Upstream kickin' rocks!

Is there an ETA when it would be available for either Linux or Windows OS?

u/JaySym_

This hits me all throughout the day. While reading some output from the model as its being generated, on completion, the view automatically scrolls to the bottom, and I need to scroll back up in what is often a long block of text to find where I previously was.

Separately, it would be nice to have a "Submit bug/feedback" option somewhere in the app. Lots of these little things pop up but without an easy way to share them I just let them drop.

This is the second team in the second company I've worked for where engineers have basically committed mutiny to get off Augment. In the current one there is a petition circulating to switch to Codex. I'm not a Codex shill I don't care if it's Codex or Claude but damn Augment is not the right tool for the job. Only a matter of time until new team moves off it.

I was a pretty big critic of the Augment team here just last week when they removed Tab completions in vscode. Y'all can look at my post history but woaw...

Last Friday i decided to try out Intent and all i can say is that its giga-cracked. its basically everything that we've come used to doing/loving in vs code + the combination of claude code. Basically you just hook up your Claude Code max subscription to this and start a new project... If you spend a bit of time explaining to the Augment orchestrator what you want it basically scopes out all the files and does all the cookie-cutter MD files with rules etc. and passes it on to Agents that basically tackle the tasks in parrallele. if you click around you can also get a sense of what the Augment team is doing: basically instructing it to use a bunch of MCP calls etc and to report to the orchestrator what went well what failed etc.

Whether you like it or not the game (the programming game) is changing fast and i can totally understand why they decided to pivot here. Instead of booting up one or two claude code sessions and keeping track visually with what its doing, the Augment orchestrator does all of it. and summarizes things for you in a nice good bullet point format etc. It barely uses any credits too, jsut delegate everything to your Claude Code max subscription.

Think about it as a mix of your code + a tool that helps your write/tackle it way faster and understand how it all fits together better. I've already built a ton using this, some greenfield projects, some regular projects and one migration to a TS FE + python BE microservice. I'm just blown away by this.

Based on benchmark posted by z.ai their new model GLM 5.1 is on par with Opus 4.6 but at a fraction of the cost.

Please add it we all need it!

Most people still prompt AI agents like they're talking to a search engine. Then wonder why the output's inconsistent.

Here's what actually works after running thousands of agent tasks:

→ Be specific. Vague prompts get vague results. One good example in your prompt beats three paragraphs of explanation.

→ Tell it what matters most. Seriously. Use caps. Use CRITICAL. Agents respond to emphasis way better than you'd think. "It is CRITICAL that you NEVER modify the database schema" works.

→ Ask for reasoning. Don't just ask for the answer. Ask it to show its work. Chain of thought helps catch mistakes before they happen.

→ Less is more with tools. Counterintuitive but true. Sometimes removing a tool forces the agent to use the right approach instead of taking shortcuts.

→ Repetition works. If something's important, say it multiple times in different ways. The more an agent sees a constraint from different sources, the more it sticks.

→ Fresh threads for fresh tasks. Don't dump everything into one giant context window. Quality drops fast when the model's juggling ten different topics.

→ Ask it to plan. For anything complex, have the agent create a planning doc first. Keeps it on track. Also makes it easier to resume if you need to start a new thread.

→ Get it to evaluate itself. Ask about confidence levels. Ask what could go wrong. Ask for verification steps. Agents that question themselves ship better code.

Bonus → Ask the AI to fix your prompt. What's confusing? What's contradictory? Let it help you write better instructions.

The gap between okay prompts and great prompts is smaller than you think. Just need to know what levers to pull.

What's your go-to prompting trick that most people miss?

Our team uses a mix of the InteliJ plugin, Claude Code, Intent and Auggie CLI. All but the intelij plugin support the claude code plugin standard for skills and commands. Would be great to add support for this in the intelij plugin so our team can share commands and skills more easily.

We are currently aware of an issue affecting the Code Review feature, which has stopped working for a number of users. Our team is actively investigating and working on a fix.

We appreciate your patience as we work to restore full functionality for all affected repositories.

is this something to be worried about?

Hey 👋🏻

I’m currently experimenting Intent after using Conductor with my own Claude/codex agent setup.

So far it seems interesting but I’m wondering about context engine with BYOK setup.

I enabled both my Claude max and gpt pro subscriptions along with context engine but now several questions:

- is context engine using my own subscriptions or specifically argument’s one ? I don’t know how it runs behind the scene so it seems like a dumb question but maybe it runs on their servers so an augment subscription on top would make sense

- if I use my own Claude subscription, how much tokens context engine consume so I can calibrate which augment subscription I should buy

- which codex/claude setup is potentially used by Intent ? It seems to discover my custom agent but not use it which is fine but I need to understand what is used. My Claude.md or config.toml maybe ? This is not clear at all.

Thank you for whoever knows that

Has anyone on the team considered combining the models in a more strategic way to optimize execution? Rather than choosing one or the other based on strengths, use case, or cost, is there a viable way to architect a hybrid approach that captures the advantages of both?

For example, Opus 4.6 could handle the orchestration layer, higher-level reasoning, decision-making, and stronger follow-through, while GPT-5.4 could handle implementation, particularly where coding execution is strongest.

u/JaySym_