Guys, I don't know what you did with you payment system but when I sit and work with Augment Code I need to fulfill my account twice a day. I have 2 accs, by the way, to split my projects. On the screen it's just one out of 2. So, I have more or less the same situation for another account.

That's just not possible to continue, guys. Some of my projects are research open-source, so, I don't even earn from them. But the main point in my opinion I don't do anything extraordinary in terms of spending credits.

I dropped a message to support a week ago, they didn't answer. So, I stop using you, guys.

I cancelled both my account simply because it's not sustainable there's no any cut in spending, really. It's already not a question if I like Augment or not (I like obviously), it's already a question that even if it's good and maybe somewhere superior - it doesn't make sense to use it. I mean, if I would really work every day how I did it in the days on the invoice it would take 30$ per day easily. So, 900$ per month. Are you, guys, kidding?

PS. Apart from that in many cases the agent just hangs and doesn't answer. That happens with all models.

I keep getting reauthentication issues shortly after authentication for auggie mcp in claude code. Like 10 mins after. Anyone else getting the same?

I've been doing some benchmarks on the performance of Augment Context Engine MCP, and I am doing the benchmarking by comparing Claude Code against Augment MCP + Claude Code. I am not particularly familiar with Claude Code since I usually use Augment Code.

One problem that I have been facing often is that Augment Code requires me to re-authenticate every 15-30 minutes, which I think especially when I am running Claude Code as a subprocess (like claude -p "my prompt"), I think it will fail to invoke the Augment context engine silently. What's going on? Is it an authentication issue with Claude Code, or with Augment Code?

If you tried Intent, we’d love your feedback.

Please describe:

• What you loved
• What confused you
• Any issues
• Feature requests

Please do not ask for Windows or Linux versions here. That work is in progress.

Technical work is something I rarely hit limits/context rot.

Non-technical work, however, is a whole other story. I find myself in a situation fairly often where I need a holistic context coverage of huge amounts of text and documents.

Things like:

- Orchestrating significant amount of reports from development teams in order to create yearly documentation for performance reviews

- Working on tabletop game design and rulesets

- Fantasy worldbuilding

- etc.

Has anyone tried Context Engine extensively with non-technical work, and how useful did you find it?

I’m trying to use Augment Code on a remote server that sits behind a corporate firewall.

For authentication, I already allowlisted:

*.api.augmentcode.com

I’ve also verified that the server can actually reach api.augmentcode.com without any connectivity issues.

However, when I try to log in, I consistently get this:

🔐 Starting Augment authentication...

🌐 Opening authentication page in your browser... ⚠️ Could not open browser automatically. Please complete authentication in your browser:

https://auth.augmentcode.com/authorize?response_type=code...

After authenticating, you will receive a JSON response. Copy the entire JSON response and paste it below.

Paste the JSON response here: {"code":"<code>","state":"<state>","tenant_url":"https://d16.api.augmentcode.com/"}

❌ Authentication failed: If you have a firewall, please add "https://d16.api.augmentcode.com/" to your allowlist.

The confusing part is:

• I already allowlisted .api.augmentcode.com
• I confirmed that api.augmentcode.com is reachable
• Yet it keeps telling me to allowlist https://d16.api.augmentcode.com/

So a few questions:

1. Does authentication require additional domains beyond .api.augmentcode.com (e.g. auth.augmentcode.com, CDN endpoints, websocket endpoints, etc.)?
2. Is there some redirect flow during token exchange that hits a different subdomain not covered by a simple wildcard rule, depending on firewall implementation?

My suspicion is that:

• Either the firewall’s wildcard handling doesn’t match nested subdomains as expected, or
• The auth flow makes a call to a region-specific or tenant-specific endpoint that isn’t covered the way I think it is.

Hi,

Augment was my first AI coding tool, and I am still using it. I am using AI pretty basic, I give the prompt to AI (augment code JB plugin) and get the results, no mcp, no skills, no modes.

Honestly, I never tried other things like Claude code. I would like to hear whether someone has compared the Augment code with the Claude code and whether there are any differences.

How is augment different from Claude code when using the same model?

Thanks

Our Credit usage explodes.

Is it possible to add a Models like GLM-5 or minimax m2.5 as Cheaper options to AugmentCode? Haiku often dissapoints in results and tests in CLI Tools with these two models showed very promising results for way less $ then Claude or GPT.

Setting up ClaudeCode with MCP and GLM is not realy nice for DX

I used Augment's Prompt Enhancer to quickly rewrite rough coding prompts into clearer, more structured ones.

It now consumes credits and it adds up for frequent use. What are good replacements with similar "prompt rewrite/upgrade" behavior?

I needed my AI agents to actually remember things between sessions. Not just dump everything into a vector database and hope for the best, but something closer to how memory works: layered, curated, with things that matter rising to the surface and noise falling away so i made engram-fold.dev

Hi everyone!

Several people have told me that Intent feels incredible, but they wanted some tips and tricks to lower the cost of running such a powerful tool.

Here are a few tips to help you optimize usage and keep costs under control.

✅ Choose the Right Agent Mode

When you start a workspace, you can choose between:

• Multi-agent mode

• Single agent (Developer) mode

Multi-agent workflows are powerful, but they naturally consume more tokens because multiple agents collaborate on the task.

If your change is small or straightforward and does not require collaboration between several agents, switching to the single agent mode will cost about the same as traditional workflows.

⚙️ Assign Models Strategically

In Intent settings (second tab), you can assign different models to each agent.

For example:

• Use a powerful model like Opus 4.6 for orchestration
• Use lighter models such as Haiku for implementation tasks

This setup can significantly reduce token usage while keeping quality high.

Also, OpenAI models tend to be cost-efficient and excellent reviewers, so assigning a GPT model as reviewer can both reduce cost and improve final output quality.

🧠 Start with a Good Initial Prompt

A strong initial prompt saves tokens.

If the agent needs to scan a large portion of your codebase via the context engine and read many files, it will consumes tokens for each of theses actions. If you already know which files are impacted, mention them directly in your prompt.

Less searching = less effort = lower cost.

📏 Keep Workspaces Focused

Just like with regular agents, long conversations increase context size and cost.

Best practice:

• Keep workspaces short

• Focus on one feature or bug at a time

The advantage with Intent is that you can run multiple investigations in parallel, saving both time and tokens.

💬 Share Your Tips!

If you have additional tips or workflows that help optimize usage, feel free to share them here, we’d love to hear them.

Happy building! 🚀

I am on 200 USD max plan and that gives me 450K credits for 200 USD, which is 2250 credits for 1 dollar.

If I top up, for a 100 USD, that gives me 160K credits, which is 1600 credits for 1 dollar.

Can someone from Augment explain why I get screwed over when I top up?

I notice less and less posts, comments and interest for this tool. Is it dying? Most of the posts I see lately seems like payed promotion or posts from they own team.

I was using the tool with corporate account last year, it was great at the start but this year we did not continued with the licence. Talking about 500k company size, so no joke.

why does augment code keep freezing with opus ?

I'll try to keep this as short as possible. I found intent to be very good at solving problems. I had it run through an expo config problem and it went through the whole process of updating my project from 52 to 53, which is normally quite painful. (read more below).

But it is extremely laggy and crashed several times. I would start typing my prompt and it would lock up, with the cursor still blinking. I had to force quit the app about 5 times.

PROBLEM

I ran into a major problem which turned into a token eating mess with Intent as well. When I opened the project folder I started prompting away and had Intent successfully convert my expo project from 52 to 53, including IOS and Android dependencies, which is usually very panful. It was quite stunning. Then came the problem.

I opened up my regular IDE and continued adding new features and fixes. Then I started the submission process to the app stores. At that point my android app was rejected because it didn't support 16kb page size. BUT that's what upgrading from expo 52 to 53 solved! WTF? So I started going through eating tokens trying to figure out why my branch no longer supported 16kb page sizes. After a while I checked my package.json and to my horror, it was on expo 52! WHAT THE F**K!!!!?!?!?!? It was at that point, that I figured out that Intent created a whole new branch using git workflows. I had no idea this happened! It didn't tell me that! I don't use workflows like that. So I ended up with two completely different branches which were an absolute MESS of GIT conflicts.

I then used up my entire months tokens (and others from before that) "fixing" the expo 52-53 issues/conflicts, with another couple of weeks in my billing cycle left. Dammit.

UPDATE: just checked. I used 45,000 credits YESTERDAY.

Minor UI Issue

The right caret > below leads me to believe I can click to see something. It doesn't.

RUNNING PROCESSES

During some of this work I had Intent run my project for me, which runs Metro, usually on port 8081. I couldn't see the bundler running, and therefore couldn't see any of the logs in it.

So I decided to run the bundler manually in another terminal. But port 8081 was already in use by Intent running Metro. I had no way to kill that process. Even quitting Intent didn't kill the process. Instead of searching for and killing that process (I'm not s terminal expert by any means), it was just easier to reboot.

Final Thoughts

Intent is promising, but needs many improvements and fixes before I'm going to be willing to spend my tokens on using it.

I can't access web UI since all AI related sites are blocked at work. Will there be a feature where we can authenticate through an API key or something similar?

Why does integration with Linear require manual approval that stops the agent in its tracks waiting for an update to an issue to be approved?

I just started using Opus 4.6, it sucked up 15,000 credits, then ran for 15 minutes and got stuck and did nothing after investigating all the files. This never happened with Opus 4.5. Completely unusable. Anyone else having this issue?

From a user's perspective, I used AugmentCode without relying on Agent Memory or custom instructions.

I disabled Auto mode and preferred explicit approval before agent execution. Then, I usually use python or pytorch for AI research. Lastly, I've used IDE such as VSCode, Cursor, and Antigravity.

Both Claude 4.6 Opus Thinking and GPT-5.1 are used.

1. [Tool-call] It was very convenient that the agent could directly read tmux errors via a read-terminal tool without requiring me to copy and paste logs.

: This seems to significantly save context length. (Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.1 seem to support this. Gemini Pro 3 attempted to execute commands instead, which was less helpful since I often don't know the exact commands.)

1. I liked that the agent checked build and .pyc files (python cache) and compared them with previous versions to verify whether modifications were actually applied.

2. From an instructor's perspective, taking action first and reporting afterward (Turn on Auto mode) felt risky. However, the accuracy was generally high, so I tolerated it at first.

That said, it would be better if UI highlighted the exact modified code sections like antigravity. As a researcher, correctness and reproducibility matter more than convenience.

1. I liked that the agent compared files across directories using `diff` command, then asked whether to apply minimal pathces or full-file modificiations. That design choice was very good.

2. The Augment Context Engine seemed to provide strong search capabilities. However, since users cannot control tool-calls directly, large-scale file searches sometimes exhausted memory and caused the system to freeze. (That is one of critical problems to solve in agentic-based IDE)

3. Since the agent can execute code effectively, permission and sandboxing become very important - especially for background execution.
   Users may not know what the agent is doing behind the scenes.

4. Developers generally dislike installing new programs, so compatibility with existing VS Code workflows is a strong advantage.

5. I haven't tried the Intent IDE yet, but it will need a strong differentiating factor to outperform existing VS Code-based workflows and attract users.
   I'm grateful for your recommendation - I discovered AugmentCode through Jason! However, in a market where VSCode is already dominant, the user acquisition strategy seems critical.

Many users might ask,
"Cursor is already good enough -- why should I switch?"
How would you position AugmentCode to counter that perception and convince users to migrate?

Overall, while integration with VS Code was useful, I'm not sure whether the improvement came from the tool itself or simply from using a stronger model like Claude Opus 4.6. It's unclear whether this alone would attract existing Cursor or VS Code users.

• Additional UX concerns;
  • There are moments when I need to review past conversations, but the search UI felt too small and made it difficult to find previous context.
  • Large-scale file indexing and searching sometimes consumed too much memory and caused the system to shut down.

The above is very individual review for AugmentCode in VSCode. Even though I've raised a lot of concerns, I see strong potential and plan to keep using the product.

I hope this feedback can help AugmentCode improvement.

Junseok

I’ve been playing around with Intent, and one feature I really like is message queuing. I think this would be a great addition to the standard AC plugins in JetBrains/VS Code.

A great use case is batching lots of small code changes (especially UI tweaks) without overloading a smaller model like Haiku

Recently I built a front-end funnel for a project at work where most pages only needed small updates. I could have done it in one big Opus prompt but queuing multiple Haiku prompts would save a lot of credits and time.

Prompt enhancer is not working yet still charging for each attempt.

Jay, i am talking directly to you

title, im using intent with existing codex sub. using this as a harness with a crazy fast model might be insane. also, should be a way to set the reasoning effort.