Amp

Neat. I spent a night with it and here are my impressions:

• Similar to Claude Code in all the good ways. Very pleasent experience overall.
• It seemed to search through and understand it rapidly maybe even faster than CC.
• It was very aggressive at deciding what to do. I spend a lot of time planning with CC and I often interrupt CC when it explains what it is about to do and guide it. I had no time at all to do that with Amp it was done making changes before I can figure out what it was trying to do. It's efforts were at least as good as CC, but still in some cases there are multiple ways to solve or troubleshoot a problem and I would like to give it more direction. I couldn't figure out how to interject and have it work with me more. CC seems to give me more info or more opportunity to interact.
• EXPENSIVE. It cost me ~~>$20~~ >$30 to work with it for maybe 2hrs with plenty of my own testing and debugging in between usage. It seems like it was a few bucks just to turn it on and ask it to start investigating.

Overall very interesting and credible alternative to CC, but my biggest show stopper is I can't afford to keep playing with it right now. I'll check back in a month or two.

Amp is the frontier coding agent for your terminal and editor.

Multi-Model: Opus 4.6, GPT-5.2 Codex, fast models—Amp uses them all, for what each model is best at.
Opinionated: You’re always using the good parts of Amp. If we don’t use and love a feature, we kill it.
On the Frontier: Amp goes where the models take it. No backcompat, no legacy features.
Threads: You can save and share your interactions with Amp. You wouldn’t code without version control, would you?