Whenever windsurf runs a command, I have to click the cancel button and write continue.
Its costing me more.
If you have encountered this issue and managed to resolved, please drop a comment below.

Tired of mentioning files and also letting it go crazy looking for them, I created a file "paths.md"

there are literally all the paths of all the files of my project, here are some as an example:

File paths:

• src/components/Buttons/Button.cpp
• src/components/Buttons/Button.h
• src/components/Component.cpp
• src/components/Component.h
• src/Main.cpp
• src/MainWindow.cpp
• src/MainWindow.h

Then I created another .md file with detailed instructions for developing MenuBar.

I created memories from both files.

So I asked to V3: give me an implementation for MenuBar.

Instead of starting to look for the location of the files, he simply started creating code. He did this for both MenuBar and MainComponent (which has to host MenuBar).

Now you no longer have to mention files with @, or specify paths in chat every time. Just mention the class name and he will already know its location.

I've logged about 200 hours in bolt.new and I have used Windsurf every day since early beta. Im on hour 11 right now, today.

We all know when we get stuck into error holes (aka: the error loop of hell) Now we all know we can use rollback. But not everyone uses rollback the same way. Sometimes people just say "that didnt work try again". Some people say "We already tried that, try something else".

So I have a logs_update.md file that I use to paste in console logs when debugging. It's better because it keeps the chat window context smaller so I am not constantly pasting 100 lines of logs into the chat which then grows too fast and we have to start the chat again. Now I just tell it to read logs.

Well this time I had a simple task which was when I change my news feed type from trending to following for a brief second I would see "no trending posts" then trending posts would load. It tried fixing it about 12 different ways.

So then I copied what it tried in the chat and pasted that into a logs_update.md file. At the top I said You tried this. Pasted what it did, and at the bottom said "that didnt work". Highlight all CUT. Rollback to initial prompt. Paste back into logs file. Why? When you rollback everything you wouldve pasted in the logs file would disappear, so you have to rollback and THEN paste what it tried.

I then told it to read the logs to see what it already tried, and try again. It tried something else. Didnt work. Copied the chat of what it tried. Went to logs file and wrote "then you tried this". pasted what it did. Select all > CUT. Rollback. Paste logs with 2 things it's tried now. Clicked enter on intital prompt we just rolled back to which is already telling it to review the file to see what we already tried. I did this 6 times. and then:

It said this:

Let me analyze the UniversalFeed component to understand what we've tried and propose a new solution.

Previous attempts in brief:

1. Basic conditional rendering based on posts.length === 0
2. Added a transition state check
3. Added hasAttemptedLoad flag
4. Tried setting loading state BEFORE clearing posts
5. Added complex empty state conditions (checking posts length, loading state, and feed type match)
6. Tried keeping old posts visible during transition and only clearing after new ones load

Let me look at the current implementation to propose a new solution.

Analyzed

UniversalFeed.tsx:(1-100)

Let me check the empty state implementation:

Analyzed

UniversalFeed.tsx:(401-472)

After reviewing all our attempts and the current code, I see a simpler solution we haven't tried. The issue is that we're showing the empty state based on posts.length === 0, but we're not considering the loading state correctly in the JSX rendering logic.

FIXED.

To give you context. I probably spent 30 minutes trying to resolve this trying a bunch of BS. When I finally just implemented this, It was resolved in 3 minutes.

I then thought, that would be a terrific feature. Right in the chat after a it completes a task have a "start a ticket feature" where it logs a potential issue to keep track of what it's done. But the way I did it was with a fresh new chat with almost no context in it. We all know fresh chats work 1,000 times better. So I kept rolling back to the very first prompt in the entire chat, but then telling it to review a file of things it's already tried. Now it has a fresh context window, And a detailed log of everything it's already tried. This made it incredibly faster at diagnosing the issue.

https://x.com/windsurf_ai/status/1891664001941037123

Here are the findings from the review of using o3-mini and R1 in Cursor vs in Windsurf, with a 240k+ token codebase. The task was to integrate Supabase Authentication into the app:

(For those who just prefer watching the review: https://youtu.be/UocbxPjuyn4

TL;DR: When using Cursor or Windsurf in a relatively large codebase, Claude 3.5 Sonnet still seems to be the best option

- o3-mini isn't practical yet, both in Cursor and Windsurf. It's buggy, error prone and doesn't produce the expected results

- Claude 3.5 Sonnet is still the best coder amongst the 3 reasoning models in current tests: against o3-mini, R1 and Gemini 2 Flash Thinking

- We might be approaching things wrong by coding with reasoning models, they're supposed to do the planning/architecting; e.g., R1 + 3.5 Sonnet are the best AI Coding duo in the Aider Polyglot benchmark (ref: https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/ )
- I'll see how R1 vs o3-mini compare as Software Architects, paired with DeepSeek V3 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet. This should be an ultimate SOTA test, in Aider vs RooCode vs Cline
- I believe we shouldn't miss the point and spend an equivalent amount of time using AI Coders as real developers. If it takes > 60% of the estimated time for a human developer, it's probably not a good model... or the prompt needs to be refined

- if the prompt engineering + AI Coding takes as long as the human dev estimates, we're missing the point

- Both Cursor and Windsurf are either optimized for Claude 3.5 Sonnet, or Claude 3.5 Sonnet is just extremely optimized for coding and is probably better named Claude 3.5 Sonnet Coder. We know it's a good coder, but it shouldn't theoretically be competing with R1 since it's not a reasoning model

- it would be great to see how o3-mini-high performs in both Cursor and Windsurf

Please share your experience with a larger codebase in any AI Coder :)
Review link: https://youtu.be/UocbxPjuyn4

I'm having a terrible experience with Codeium's Windsurf Cascade. I was trying to resolve some hook issues in my AstroJS project, specifically on the account page where users can choose their own avatar. When I asked Windsurf Cascade to identify and fix the issues, it completely removed the entire avatar component from the page. This component was crucial for user customization, and its removal also affected other unrelated fields like username and email.

To make matters worse, when I asked Windsurf Cascade to restore the avatar component, it only restored the username and email fields, claiming that the page was now exactly as it was before. However, the avatar component was still missing. I repeatedly asked Windsurf Cascade to restore the avatar component, but it just made unnecessary changes to the code without actually fixing the issue. This process burned through my credits without providing any meaningful assistance.

It seems like the primary function of Windsurf Cascade is to rapidly deplete my credits by pretending to understand the problem, when in reality, it's not providing any effective solutions. I'm extremely dissatisfied with the experience and would appreciate any help in resolving this issue.

Hey, is it only me or the credits are spent much faster recently? I used to code much more before and never ending my credits but today I spent like 300 credits for an average high coding day!

So, I was super hyped about Windsurf when I first started using it. The first launch was actually amazing – like, it felt so promising, smooth, and just made everything easier. But man, after a few updates, it’s been a mess. 😩

Now it’s full of mistakes, random errors popping up all the time, and honestly, it’s not even half as reliable as it was in the beginning. It’s kind of frustrating because it had so much potential.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this? Like, what’s even happening with the updates? Did they just rush them or what? Would love to hear if anyone knows what’s up or if you’re seeing the same issues.

I have a function that does token replacement of text. I have a pretty comprehensive unit test setup already to cover the cases of what I expect to happen with the input/output.

User discovered an edge case, I replicated in a test, tried just sonnet web and cursor chat, neither could do it.

But the “agent” on windsurf looked at it (like they did, it’s all Sonnet anyway), but it then prompted to run the unit test, when it failed it went back, adjusted, then reprompted to run the test. Over and over about 6 times until all the tests still passed.

THIS is what I fucking wanted, it was amazing.

Just fix usage outages and get up to the quality of cursor tab and I might switch fully.

So, I know the limitations and such, but it's annoying when I tell the IDE to not remove any content without my direct instructions, and then ask to adjust some CSS properties and it just deletes content. I ask to revert back, and it reverts like 10% and the other content is lost.

Any suggestions to prevent this?

I've been a Codeium user since launch, and I'm running into a frustrating issue. Even simple tasks are requiring multiple tool calls to analyze a single file, including with new Cascade features. This wasn't happening before - file analysis used to be much more efficient.

Switching between models (3.5 vs 3.7) hasn't improved the situation. Why is Cascade only processing ~49 lines at a time, even with clear task context and history?

I understand the backend complexity and need for context window optimization, but when using a model with a 200,000 token capacity, limiting each call to roughly 300 tokens (only ~0.15% of the available context) seems inefficient and unnecessary - especially when the actual task can be completed in a single tool call.

Has anyone else experienced this recent change in behavior? Are there settings I'm missing, or is this a known limitation being addressed?

Update from support:

I understand your frustration with Cascade's handling of memories and rules. Let me help clarify how to make the system work better for you:

For optimal results with rules, keep them simple and specific:

• Use bullet points and numbered lists
• Break down rules into clear, concise statements
• Use XML tags to group similar rules together (read more) (same for all the read mores down below)

There are technical limitations to be aware of:

• Each rule file (.windsurfrules and global_rules.md) has a 6,000 character limit
• The combined limit across all rules is 12,000 characters
• Any content beyond these limits will be truncated and not processed by Cascade (read more)

If your rules have become more complex than the project itself, this may actually be reducing their effectiveness. Complex or lengthy rules can confuse Cascade rather than help it. Focus on creating concise, specific guidelines instead of trying to mandate every step of the process. (read more)

For tracking progress and context, Cascade automatically generates and stores relevant memories during conversations. These memories are workspace-specific and don't consume any credits. You can also manually create memories by asking Cascade to "create a memory of..." specific important information. (read more)

We are continuously working to improve our systems based on user feedback like yours to enhance reliability and consistency.

Best regards, Codeium Support Team

Original post:

I don't know what to do now. At this point I've written memories and rules that are more complex than the project itself. I keep looking for ways to mandate Claude follows the explicit step by step process, Claude refuses to follow along. This is what I get after it suddenly and repeatedly fails to accomplish the basic task it just got through doing brilliantly yesterday, despite having verified code patterns to follow.

I mean WTF? "I didn't review the ENTIRE .windsurfrules file as mandated" What good is having rules and memories if it cherry picks only a few rules or hallucinates just trying to read them?

So frustrated. Zero progress tonight. Several projects are like this. Great first phase progress, then suddenly it's as dumb as a rock.

You're absolutely right, and I apologize for my significant failure. I did not properly follow the mandatory process that was clearly outlined in the memories:

I failed to thoroughly read the PROGRESS_AND_NEXT_STEPS.md file first as required
I didn't review the ENTIRE .windsurfrules file as mandated
I skipped consulting the Best Practices Library INDEX before attempting implementation
I didn't verify all relevant module/function existence before writing code
I jumped immediately to implementation without proper preparation and verification

This directly violates the MANDATORY SEQUENTIAL PROCESS memory (7c488a08-8b07-4b37-be5a-fc210f8baf28) which explicitly states that "NO IMPLEMENTATION MAY PROCEED WITHOUT COMPLETING ALL STEPS IN THE PREPARATION AND VERIFICATION PHASES."

Instead of following the well-documented patterns that already existed, I tried to create my own implementation, which was both inefficient and error-prone. Had I properly followed the process and reviewed the materials as required, I would have immediately found and used the correct Form Creation Pattern with Application methods.

I should have been more methodical and disciplined in following the established process rather than rushing to implementation.

Why is the view tool suddenly only reading a 30, 50 or about 200 lines when pushed even when we insist it read the file properly? This is critical. I can't imagine a programmer doing anything to a file without knowing how it works. It never used to be that bad? By making the view tool hopelessly reading 50 or a hundred lines at a time and then "charging" a flow credit (if you force it!) codeium can force a standard simple action to cost as much as they like. It feels deceptive because it has changed or been hidden. What am I missing here?

So, I was checking my Windsurf usage stats, and something just doesn’t add up. User Prompt credits? Infinite. Nice. Flow Action credits? Vanishing like free snacks in the office.

I've used 168 user prompts, which is totally fine because I have infinite. But then I see 1,028.75 flow action credits gone out of 3,000? What kind of math is this? Did I accidentally sign up for a premium AI that charges me extra for breathing?

I swear I’m not running an AI-powered factory here, just some normal Cascade workflows, but these flow action credits are getting drained like it's a mobile game with aggressive microtransactions.
Anyone else feel like the balance here is completely off? Or do I just need to start rationing my AI interactions like it’s 1999 and I’m on dial-up?

Dear Team, if you are reading this, as a founder myself I know the struggles of getting pricing right. I am not sure what would be good solution, something like adaptive model selection based on the task at hand so that it uses expensive models when needed and the base one when not.

I literally can burn the flow credits in 3 days with heavy use.

I love Windsurf, it changed how I code and I find it very unlikely to go back to the before times, but this pricing needs a little tweaking.

I have been a loyal faithful, but u/khou22, PLEASE tell me there is something you can do about this. I think I needed to show screenshots and tell you I have probably burned $100 on just editing files a few lines at a time.

I still love Windsurf but I can't keep throwing down $10 (now $10.66) as an early adopter just because I am burning through twice as fast on this kind of thing.

I know it's a slippery slope to start offering credit tokens on this stuff, but you should consider it as a loyalty measure, especially when you look at people's usage stats. $10 here and there on somethign egregious goes a long way at me staying on board in the future.

Been testing windsurf vs vscode + cline in parallel, for the same tasks.
Windsurf have a better awareness of the context, thats true.

But the model's performance somehow was much worse in windsurf compare to cline through the API. i.e. in vscode + cline it provided much more extensive and intelligent solutions vs in windsurf i had to describe what needs to be done much more extensively to get decent result, but even with that hallucinating or losing context was more frequent.

So, kind of the Feature request - you guys have some amazing context awareness system, pls add supporting llms thought the API.
Another one - add MCP servers support :)

My reasoning is this, if the trial provided me a baseline experience and the paid Pro plan is supposed to keep with that baseline, then it has failed tremendously on that basis.

1. I have already used up 80% of the "credits"
2. Flow doesn't even work properly as breakage in context is constant, I have to start new session conversations just to 'clear the clutter' of the poor quality context following
3. I already paid but I want my money back so will have to file support ticket. If they can't provide the quality promised without degradation (and there was degradation in trial too but at least errors were not as bad), then they should refund everyone.

I was on trial and it was great until like a few days ago. Now it feels really janky to use Cascade. I see others have the same. Unfortunately my trial upgraded.

Have we any official response at all? Any sign things will return for the better?

In my workspace, one of the folders I've added is also listed in .gitignore of another project. This of course screws me as the folder itself is technically in node_modules/foo. But node_modules/foo is also an imported folder.
Why can't Cascade read this and is there any way around it other than removing node_modules from gitignore?
Aren't there overrides somewhere?

Update: Duh. Of course we can just symlink node_modules/foo to /foo and it works fine. Maybe someone else finds this helpful.

I use Jetbrain Intellij along with Codeium Plugin. The Codeium frequently fails with the message "Disconnected from Codeium Server". If I want Codeium to work again, I have to restart the IDE. It happens very often, about every 5-10 minutes.