Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
#25297 requires architectural changes to proxy request routing, extensibility boundaries, configuration, execution semantics, and broad compatibility testing; #30641 is primarily an admin-UI and configuration-discovery integration with narrower behavioral scope.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297 4:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/30641

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
28168 is harder because it spans many persisted resource types, requires dependency-aware serialization and secure secret handling, and needs a stable portable format with compatibility and validation concerns. 25297 is narrower, mainly requiring an extensible routing hook, configuration surface, and safe integration with existing request and fallback paths.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28168 4:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
The custom-routing work is harder because it requires designing and integrating a stable extensibility contract across proxy configuration, request execution, routing state, fallbacks, concurrency, and backward compatibility, with substantial documentation and test coverage. The outage-related fix is narrower in scope: it primarily involves startup/readiness gating, retry/recovery behavior, and preserving valid state during dependency failures.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297 3:2 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/26237

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
Extending the proxy with user-defined routing is broader and riskier: it requires a stable extension contract, lifecycle and concurrency handling, validation, observability, failure semantics, and compatibility across routing paths. The other change is comparatively localized to configuration resolution and deployment expansion.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297 3:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28125

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
The proxy-side change is harder because it requires a stable extensibility architecture within the request-routing lifecycle, careful compatibility with existing strategies, and robust behavior under concurrency, retries, fallbacks, and distributed deployments. The CLI work is broader across integrations but can largely be isolated behind provider-specific launch adapters and configuration flows.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297 5:3 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/30421

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
The left task is harder because it spans model integration, request-path transformation, multi-surface configuration, observability, dependency/runtime concerns, and failure isolation. The right task is primarily an extensibility change around routing interfaces and proxy wiring, with less cross-cutting behavior.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/29320 3:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
The left requires a broader extension architecture across proxy request flow, strategy injection, compatibility, and operational behavior, creating more integration and regression risk. The right is a bounded quota feature with focused persistence, enforcement, API, and UI changes.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297 3:2 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/31821

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
Historical spend correction has greater scope and risk: it requires safe, repeatable data mutation, pricing-version handling, policy semantics, auditability, and operational safeguards. Custom routing is architecturally significant but can largely be isolated behind a routing extension interface and proxy integration.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/31835 5:4 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25297

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
Monthly quota enforcement spans persistent schema changes, atomic/distributed usage accounting, calendar-time and timezone edge cases, request-path integration, API/UI exposure, and backward compatibility. The composition change is primarily configuration parsing and model-group resolution, though it still carries routing and validation risks.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/31821 5:3 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28125

Sorting LiteLLM GitHub issues by difficulty to implement. Higher = harder.

{
28125 requires deeper changes to deployment resolution and routing semantics, including nested expansion, inheritance, validation, and edge-case handling across existing configuration paths. 33371 is broader in API design and classification consistency, but can be implemented incrementally around existing cooldown and error-handling state.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28125 3:2 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/33371