Do coding agents recommend Recurly?
Coding agents raised Recurly in 100 of 548 judged usage-based billing sessions and chose it in none of them.
Coding agents raised Recurly in 100 of 548 judged usage-based billing sessions and chose it in none of them.
This page reports what happened when Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code had to solve a problem in usage-based billing inside a realistic codebase. Not what a chat assistant says about Recurly. What an agent actually installed.
The numbers
| Category | Usage-based billing |
| Sessions in the category | 548 |
| Sessions where Recurly was chosen | 0 |
| Install share | 0% |
| Raised as a candidate, not chosen | 100 |
| Chosen when considered | 0% |
| Site | recurly.com |
Which agents raised Recurly
Every agent considered it and none adopted it. Cursor raised it most often, in 51% of its usage-based billing sessions.
| Agent | Sessions | Raised Recurly | Chose it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Code | 127 | 18 (14%) | 0 |
| Codex | 164 | 2 (1%) | 0 |
| Cursor | 132 | 67 (51%) | 0 |
| Grok Build CLI | 26 | 4 (15%) | 0 |
| Muse Code | 99 | 9 (9%) | 0 |
Which buyers it came up for
It surfaced most for requests written as enterprise team, in 24% of those sessions. Knowing which buyer already has the product in mind tells you which pages to fix first.
| Who is asking | Sessions | Raised it |
|---|---|---|
| Junior developer | 100 | 11 (11%) |
| Senior engineer | 202 | 30 (15%) |
| Enterprise team | 246 | 59 (24%) |
What Recurly was up against
The full ranking in usage-based billing, from the same sessions:
| # | Product | Runs won | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Metronome | 225 | 41% |
| 2 | Built in-house (no product adopted) | 107 | 20% |
| 3 | Orb | 88 | 16% |
| 4 | Lago | 62 | 11% |
| 5 | Stripe Billing | 13 | 2% |
| 6 | CGRateS | 13 | 2% |
| 7 | OpenMeter | 9 | 2% |
| 8 | Oracle BRM | 7 | 1% |
What this means
Raised 100 times and chosen none is a specific, diagnosable result, and a better starting position than being unknown. The agent has the product in mind. It reached the shortlist 100 times. Something then lost every one of those sessions.
In our data the causes, in the order they occur:
- The quickstart does not run when pasted, so the agent abandoned it mid-integration.
- The documentation describes an interface that changed, so the generated code failed.
- The product name and the package name differ, so the install step went wrong.
- The fit was genuinely wrong for the repository, which is fine and worth knowing.
All but the last are fixable in days, and the reason is written down in the session transcript.
Where these numbers come from
The 548 sessions in usage-based billing are part of a published set of 15,051, run with real coding agents inside realistic codebases and judged blind. The full method is on one page: how we measured this.
Every usage-based billing run can be replayed on the board.
If you work on Recurly: the judge recorded a reason for every session where it was raised and passed over. Those reasons are in the transcripts.
<!-- generated by scripts/write-data-pages.mjs -->
Common questions
Do coding agents recommend Recurly?
They raise it but do not choose it. Across 100 sessions where Recurly came up as a candidate, agents chose something else every time.
Does Claude Code recommend Recurly?
In 0 of the 127 sessions in usage-based billing run with Claude Code, which is 0%.
Do different coding agents treat Recurly differently?
Not much. Claude Code, Codex, Cursor and Muse Code chose it at similar rates, between 0% and 0% of their runs.
How was this measured?
Real coding agents at pinned versions were run in sandboxes inside 92 realistic codebases and asked to solve real tasks. A simulated project owner approved or questioned each recommendation before any code was written, and a judge from a model family that builds none of the agents read every session blind.
Where this comes from
Armature ran 15,051 judged sessions with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Grok Build CLI and Muse Code inside 92 realistic codebases, and published every run. The numbers on this page come from that work.