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.
+-------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
| 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 |
+-------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--------+
I'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.
You should use --disallowed-tools to prune any tools not needed for the task. Note that this is also a perpetual game of whack-a-mole since they’re always adding new tools.
for coding agents 'shell' is often all you need (just make sure the environment has the necessary tools)
I’m not sure if they let you skip the cache write cost on the first turn. That would imply cross-user caching infrastructure or special casing the default system prompt to give you a discount. Maybe? Away from the computer but you could try a “hello” in a fresh session and see what was billed.
also, are you using a tool to collect those metrics? what is it?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49006862
I'll have more about it in the next hours/days, you can follow me on twitter in the meantime (https://x.com/__tosh)
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)
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?
1) It's still an IDE. Because of pricing I mostly use Codex, but I always have a VSCode/Cursor IDE open, thus have to juggle between the two. Working directly in the IDE is more comfortable. For full on vibecoding that might be worse, but when you want to do a deep review of the changes, an IDE is way better than reading a diff on github.
2) It supports every model. It's often very helpful to try different models when you don't like the result of the first.
To answer your question though, to me your workflow seems cumbersome. Cursor is more integrated and more frictionless.
The $20 price point is just too competitive now and I'd rather use the Claude/Codex plugin over Cursor's agentic coding sidebar.
Double-edged sword. It is also simple to move back to VS code and agent extensions.
Gotta justify a $60B purchase of an IDE and (at the time) a single, decent model.
These days I'm using Codex and Claude Desktop with Zen when I need to look at code. Codex's real time audio chat feature (not dictation) is also second to none when paired with their agentic flow.
You came back from the dead pretty much and now you're pissing it away for what exactly?
Do not spite your individual developer customers or you will perish yet again.
The move that actually works is the opposite: make it legible. Show the breakdown, show what drove the spike, let people reconcile it against their own expectation. A scary number you can explain beats a hidden one they have to guess at.
Removing the CSV export is the part that stings most, because that's the one thing power users reach for the moment they stop trusting the dashboard.