Not OP, but I feel the same way. Cost is just one of the factor. I'm used to Claude Code UX, my CLAUDE.md works well with my workflow too. Unless there's any significant improvement, changing to new models every few months is going to hurt me more.

I used to think this way. But I moved to AGENTS.md. Now I use the different UI as a mental context separation. Codex is working on Feature A, Gemini on feature B, Claude on Feature C. It has become a feature.

You're assuming that different models need the same stuff in AGENTS.md

In my experience, to get the best performance out of different models, they need slightly different prompting.

just switch to Opencode and stop locking yourself into a particular providers way of doing things.

There's a plugin for everything that mimics anything the others are doing

Being open does not magically make everything better. People are willing to pay for Claude Code for many valid reasons. You are also assuming I have never used OpenCode, which is incorrect. Claude is simply my preference.

I see all of these tools as IDEs. Whether someone locks into VS Code, JetBrains, Neovim, or Sublime Text comes down to personal preference. Everyone works differently, and that is completely fine.

I use claude on opencode.

I'm not sure you even understand what opencode is.

Does that mean that you also don't switch to newer Anthropic models? Because they would change similarly, wouldn't they?

I think a big part of the switching cost is the cost of learning a different model's nuances. Having good intuition for what works/doesn't, how to write effective prompts, etc.

Maybe someday future models will all behave similarly given the same prompt, but we're not quite there yet

Because some people are restricted by company policy to only use providers with which they have a legally binding agreement to not use their chats as training data.