> Avoid generic tangents.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage.

See: Hacker News Guidelines

Agree. The LLM'isms are offputting.

Really? I mean, yeah, it's probably written by an LLM, but it's hardly the worst that I've seen. Looks way more straight forward than the modern README featuring a ton of badges, emojis, confusing out-of-context screenshots, "trust me bro" installation instructions, vague elevator pitches, "used by netflix, nasa, disney, good morning america, alex jones, the church of scientology", and other verbiage to create the illusion that the author won't immediately get bored and abandon their glorified dissertation piece. They all scream "give me your github stars" whereas this one doesn't. But I still get what you mean when it comes to the particular 'isms.

Throwing my support for this. Do not use LLMs to write things humans should write.

Fine, but then LiteLLM doesn't quite live up to its name, does it? With all those features, there is nothing "lite" about it. It is essential for a project to live up to its name.

Imagine Sqlite adding heavy features from Postgresql.

I'm always confused by LLM proxies that claim to support tool calling. Even for Bifrost that claims to be doing it, at least when I was checking it out, I found out that while it injects the list of MCP tools that's available on the proxy-side, it doesn't actually make the call on client's behalf, and clients get confused by it (response returns MCP call request whose tool doesn't exist on the client-side).

LiteLLM is basically Bifrost in the Python ecosystem.