[flagged]
Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
21–30 of 172 posts
Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#22There are huge token efficiency/bloat differences between agents while working on the same tasks, using the same model, in the same environment
Yesterday I ran 10 agentic tasks using GPT 5.6 Sol in an ubuntu 26.04 vm a couple of times with different harnesses and got vastly different token usage.
+-------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| Harness | API total | Input | Cached | Uncached | Output |
+-------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| smol | 172,807 | 142,334 | 8,704 | 133,630 | 30,473 |
| Pi | 427,211 | 392,767 | 137,216 | 255,551 | 34,444 |
| OpenCode | 1,564,429 | 1,523,957 | 1,204,736 | 319,221 | 40,472 |
| Codex | 3,005,744 | 2,953,154 | 2,649,344 | 303,810 | 52,590 |
| Hermes | 3,856,611 | 3,808,231 | 3,167,232 | 640,999 | 48,380 |
| Claude Code | 5,073,137 | 5,029,969 | 4,587,008 | 442,961 | 43,168 |
+-------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
https://x.com/__tosh/status/2083593799872237680I'm not surprised that Claude Code is not optimized for an OpenAI model but I was still quite shocked re how much of a difference the harness makes.
Disclaimer: I'm working on 'smol' which is a minimalist harness but it's really nothing special, just a minimal system prompt, no skills files, only tool is shell
Do not underestimate how much popular harnesses are spamming the context window. The context window is very important.
Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#23I was an early and passionate adopter and paying customer of Cursor (since 2023!), but it’s probably been 6 months since I opened it. These days I “write” code with claude code and codex, and read/review it on GitHub. If I need to read it locally, I use a plain text editor. Can someone help me understand what value cursor offers in 2026?
Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#24I was an early and passionate adopter and paying customer of Cursor (since 2023!), but it’s probably been 6 months since I opened it. These days I “write” code with claude code and codex, and read/review it on GitHub. If I need to read it locally, I use a plain text editor. Can someone help me understand what value cursor offers in 2026?
Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#25I can only recommend to regularly measure how many tokens a harness+model combination uses for a certain task There are huge token efficiency/bloat differences between agents while working on the same tasks, using the same model, in the same environment Yesterday I ran 10 agentic tasks using GPT 5.6 Sol in an ubuntu 26.04 vm a couple of times with different harnesses and got vastly different token usage. +-----------…
Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#26I was an early and passionate adopter and paying customer of Cursor (since 2023!), but it’s probably been 6 months since I opened it. These days I “write” code with claude code and codex, and read/review it on GitHub. If I need to read it locally, I use a plain text editor. Can someone help me understand what value cursor offers in 2026?
Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#27Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#28Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't VS Code extensions solve your use case?
I tried the codex extension many months ago but I didn't like it. I use mostly the Codex App, or sometimes the Codex TUI inside the IDE terminal.
Re: Cursor removed cost information from the usage page and CSV export
#30I can only recommend to regularly measure how many tokens a harness+model combination uses for a certain task There are huge token efficiency/bloat differences between agents while working on the same tasks, using the same model, in the same environment Yesterday I ran 10 agentic tasks using GPT 5.6 Sol in an ubuntu 26.04 vm a couple of times with different harnesses and got vastly different token usage. +-----------…
Same task? How did the results compare?
like creating a checksum of a file, merging csvs and so on, fixing a makefile pipeline
with known 'good' outcomes
all harnesses could reach the outcomes, only cost, time, number of tool uses and so on were different
(Claude Code failed once in 1 task but I think that was just an unfortunate outlier, the tasks aren't that difficult)