Is your org planning for the next agent platform shift, or locking itself in with a specific provider?
My org has rolled out Claude Code widely in the last month or so. Before that, we had GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Augment. I have watched my peers shift their work to build specific tools that are locking us into the Claude Code platform; Skills with Claude-specific frontmatter fields and tool names, Claude hooks, CLAUDE.md everywhere.
For my personal stuff, I have been keeping things tool agnostic because I have switched agent platforms 3 times since I started messing around with these things. Any given platform starts off affordable for experimentation, then realizes it can't keep subsidizing token costs and raises its prices. We've been seeing Claude Code do that in the last few weeks, and I've had other providers do that before. So I'll probably switch my personal stack again soon.
But for the org, the switching cost is a lot higher. Especially as more and more employees build things that are optimized for a specific agent platform. I'm really curious if any orgs are actively monitoring and discouraging vendor lock-in, or if everyone is just going to have to pay the price when the invoice numbers change. It seems like the big players are counting on the lock-in, but I'm curious if any orgs are actively trying to keep their options open or if that's really only feasible on an individual level.