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

{
29320 requires a broad new integration spanning request processing, configuration, proxy and SDK paths, fail-open behavior, and observability. 25447 may involve difficult distributed-state debugging, but its implementation scope is narrower and depends on reproducing and isolating an existing defect.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/29320 3:2 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/25447

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

{
The right-hand RFC is harder because it requires cross-provider contract design, classification semantics, compatibility decisions, and coordinated API/test coverage, while the left-hand fix is primarily lifecycle and readiness handling within existing state-loading behavior.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/33371 5:3 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/26237

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

{
The recursive-schema failure requires redesigning bounded expansion semantics across multiple provider translation paths, with careful handling of cycles, fan-out, memory/CPU limits, compatibility, and regression testing. The budget issue is narrower: it mainly needs atomic/concurrency-safe counter-window updates and reliable async write coordination in one accounting path.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34328 3:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34733

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

{
The left task is substantially harder because it spans a new opt-in integration, request-path behavior, configuration across multiple caller scopes, fail-open guarantees, and several observability surfaces. The right task is a focused safety fix across a small number of schema-expansion paths, though it carries meaningful performance and regression risk.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/29320 4:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34328

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

{
29452 is harder because it requires designing and integrating a broad authentication abstraction across providers, credential lifecycles, storage, CLI/API surfaces, and security-sensitive compatibility concerns. 34328 is technically subtle but comparatively bounded to schema-expansion safeguards and a small set of affected call paths.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/29452 3:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34328

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

{
29452 is harder because it requires a security-sensitive, cross-cutting authentication abstraction with storage, lifecycle, provider compatibility, migration, and extensive validation concerns. 28125 is narrower in scope, mainly involving configuration resolution, composition semantics, cycle handling, and routing tests.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/29452 4:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28125

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

{
31467 is harder because it requires a security-sensitive, cross-provider audit and coordinated changes to credential resolution, endpoint trust boundaries, compatibility behavior, and regression coverage. 28125 is a broader routing feature, but its behavior can be contained within configuration expansion and model-group selection mechanisms.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/31467 5:4 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28125

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

{
The left issue spans validation of a multi-provider compatibility stack, matrix generation, proxy configuration, CI gating, and independent test coverage, creating broader coordination and integration risk. The right issue is technically subtle but has a more contained remediation surface around bounded recursive-schema expansion, caller configuration, and regression tests.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/26535 3:2 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34328

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

{
34328 is harder because it requires algorithmic safeguards, multiple integration-point changes, termination/resource guarantees, and cross-provider regression testing; 35524 is comparatively localized to budget-admission logic and its concurrency-focused tests.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34328 4:1 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/35524

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

{
34733 is harder because it requires preserving distributed counter correctness across concurrent workers, coordinating related state updates, and safely changing asynchronous persistence semantics with strong regression coverage. 26700 is narrower in scope, primarily involving MCP lifecycle handling and compatibility with an upstream SDK behavior.
}
https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34733 5:3 https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/26700