Litellm

[hannesrudolph]

Important

Adds documentation for LiteLLM integration with Roo Code and updates the sidebar to include it.

• Documentation:
  • Adds litellm.md to docs/providers/ detailing how to use LiteLLM with Roo Code.
  • Covers setup, configuration, and model information retrieval.
• Sidebar Update:
  • Adds providers/litellm to sidebars.ts under the 'Model Providers' category.

^{This description was created by for 168e76b. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
roo-code-docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	May 8, 2025 3:04am

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to 40630d3 in 2 minutes and 17 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 103 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/providers/litellm.md:83

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a newline at end-of-file to satisfy typical ESLint/Prettier rules. This improves consistency across files.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While trailing newlines are a common convention and often enforced by linters, this is a documentation file rather than code. The additional rules mention ESLint/Prettier setup but that's primarily for code files. Documentation files don't typically need the same strict linting rules. Making a comment about this is overly pedantic and doesn't improve code quality. The comment is technically correct - many editors and tools do prefer trailing newlines. Could this be part of a broader documentation style guide? Even if there is a documentation style guide, this kind of minor formatting issue should be handled automatically by tooling rather than through code review comments. It's too trivial to warrant manual intervention. This comment should be removed as it's overly pedantic for a documentation file and doesn't meaningfully improve the codebase. Such formatting issues should be handled by automated tooling.

2. sidebars.ts:114

• Draft comment:
  The addition of 'providers/litellm' is clear. Ensure its placement in the sidebar matches the intended order.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None

3. docs/providers/litellm.md:44

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the default model ID (anthropic/claude-3-7-sonnet-20250219) remains in sync with the current configuration in code.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50% None

4. sidebars.ts:111

• Draft comment:
  The addition of 'providers/litellm' looks correct. Ensure its placement remains consistent with the grouping or sorting strategy used in this section.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

5. docs/providers/litellm.md:57

• Draft comment:
  There is an inconsistent formatting of the contextWindow default value. In the description at line 57 it is shown as 200000, whereas in the default values list (line 65) it appears as 200,000. Consider using a consistent format for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While the comment is technically correct about the inconsistency, this is a very minor formatting issue in documentation. The numbers are functionally identical and both are perfectly readable. The rules state not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This seems like an unnecessarily pedantic comment that doesn't materially improve the documentation. The inconsistency could potentially confuse readers who are comparing values between sections. Consistent formatting is generally good documentation practice. While consistency is good, this difference is so minor that it's unlikely to cause any real confusion - both formats are standard ways to write large numbers and the meaning is clear in both cases. This comment should be deleted as it addresses an extremely minor formatting inconsistency that doesn't impact understanding and isn't worth the PR author's time to fix.

Workflow ID: wflow_qEqeNd6Cb10Le0Kk

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Please add a newline at the end of the file to comply with standard formatting.

Suggested change

By leveraging LiteLLM, you can significantly expand the range of models accessible to Roo Code while centralizing their management.

^{This comment was generated because it violated a code review rule: mrule_r5xiY5Rqu2PLyeZI.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed 168e76b in 47 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 14 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/providers/litellm.md:46

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the new image path '/img/litellm/litellm.png' is correct and that the corresponding image asset exists. Also, ensure that all internal references and documentation align with this new path.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50% This comment is asking the PR author to verify the correctness of an image path and ensure alignment with internal references and documentation. This falls under asking the author to double-check things, which is against the rules.

2. docs/providers/litellm.md:46

• Draft comment:
  Updated image source path and removed placeholder text. Please ensure that the new image path (/img/litellm/litellm.png) is correct and that the corresponding image asset exists. This change improves clarity by removing redundant placeholder text.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50% None

Workflow ID: wflow_dxSYN9Ameqwt7mka

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[mrubens]

The image wasn't showing up in the Vercel preview, not sure if that's a real issue or not. Looks good otherwise!