Augment Code review

Augment Code builds Cosmos, a platform for running AI agents across the full software development lifecycle rather than just inside an editor. The pitch is ticket to code to review to deploy to monitoring, with humans approving work at set checkpoints instead of reviewing every line.

The product ships prebuilt "Experts": agent templates for code review, ticket-to-PR work, vulnerability remediation, and incident response. Per the product pages, the code review Expert scans a pull request for intent and architecture problems rather than diff-by-diff nitpicking, the ticket-to-PR Expert investigates a ticket and writes and tests a change end to end, and the vulnerability remediation Expert maps blast radius from a CVE alert and hands engineers a patch to approve.

Underneath, a Context Engine gives agents codebase understanding across an organization's repos, and an Expert Registry lets teams build custom agents with their own environment and memory, on top of the prebuilt ones.

The feature list reads like it was built by people who have shipped software, not just a wrapper around a chat window. Specific strengths called out on the product and pricing pages:

• Checkpoint-based review: agents do the work, humans approve at defined points, rather than an all-or-nothing auto-merge model.
• Org-wide context: the Context Engine is scoped to the organization's repos, not a single project, which matters for ticket-to-PR and incident response Experts that need to reason across services.
• Incident response drafting: the Expert drafts a timeline and likely cause before the on-call engineer joins, which is a narrower and more useful claim than generic "AI debugging."
• Custom Experts: the Expert Registry supports building agent templates with their own environment and memory, so teams aren't limited to the prebuilt four.
• Compliance baseline: both paid plans include SOC 2 Type II and a no-training-on-data policy per the pricing page, and Enterprise adds SSO, OIDC, SCIM, CMEK and ISO 42001.

One Reddit commenter on r/AugmentCodeAI argued there's "no alternative" for agentic coding with a comparable memory feature, which tracks with the memory and context claims Augment makes for its Experts.

The pricing page lists Standard at $20/month and Business at $100/month, both flat fees covering usage across LLM, Context Engine and compute, capped at 50 seats and 50 concurrent sessions. Anything beyond that is pay-as-you-go top-ups, and Augment charges a 40% service fee on LLM usage specifically, with no fee on compute. That split makes total monthly cost hard to predict before you've actually run workloads through it.

That unpredictability shows up directly in user complaints. On r/AugmentCodeAI, after Augment moved to credit-based pricing, commenters reported single conversations burning 1,700 credits, average requests costing around 4,700 credits, and 1.5 million purchased tokens lasting roughly a month. One thread's top comment called the new model "basically a robbery," and another described legacy Dev plan users getting worse message allowances than new subscribers despite paying to upgrade.

Separately, on r/Jetbrains, users reported that Augment shut down its standalone JetBrains code-completion extension, pushing people back to Copilot or JetBrains' own AI completions, which some found less context-aware by comparison. None of these Reddit figures appear on the current pricing page, so treat them as historical complaints about a pricing transition rather than today's published rates.

Standard runs $20 a month flat, covering up to 50 seats and a $20 pool of usage across LLM calls, the Context Engine, and compute. Business is $100 a month for the same 50-seat cap, just a bigger usage pool. That's a 5x price jump for the same seat limit, not a per-seat scale-up, so the real question is whether your team burns through $20 or $100 of agent usage a month.

The bigger gotcha is the add-on structure. Run out of pooled usage and you buy top-ups pay-as-you-go, valid for 12 months, plus a 40% service fee tacked onto LLM usage specifically (compute is exempt). That fee compounds with model costs in a way that's hard to forecast before you've actually run agents against a real codebase.

There's no free plan, no listed free trial, and no annual discount on Standard or Business — only Enterprise mentions volume-based annual pricing, and that's custom-quoted.

The lock-in risk isn't the code itself — it's the setup around it. The Expert Registry holds custom agent templates with their own environment and memory, and the Context Engine builds organization-wide codebase understanding over time. Rebuilding that configuration on another platform means redoing template and memory setup from scratch; the pricing page doesn't publish an export path for that data.

For teams moving toward Augment Code, SOC 2 Type II is standard on every plan, and Enterprise adds SSO, OIDC, SCIM, CMEK, and ISO 42001 — useful if you're leaving a tool that lacked those certifications and a compliance review was the blocker.

The switching friction mostly shows up in billing, not features. Teams used to flat per-seat pricing elsewhere tend to struggle with the 40% LLM usage fee and pay-as-you-go top-ups, since actual monthly cost depends on how much agent work runs, not headcount. Anyone expecting IDE-native code completion won't find it here; Augment Code is built around checkpoint-based agents, not inline suggestions.