-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
docs: sync OpenHands LLMs list with Agent SDK VERIFIED_OPENHANDS_MODELS #89
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
…LS\n\nSource of truth: openhands-sdk/openhands/sdk/llm/utils/verified_models.py\n- Add: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001, gpt-5-codex, claude-opus-4-1-20250805, kimi-k2-0711-preview\n- Remove: devstral-small-2505\n- Align order with VERIFIED_OPENHANDS_MODELS\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
|
I've removed myself and asked Xingyao for a look. I don't know how correct the changes are. |
… N/A; add source note\n\nSource: litellm model_prices_and_context_window_backup.json; Verified list remains source-of-truth for models.\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…50514 1M input tokens)\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…ored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…p LiteLLM source note\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
|
Yup! I verified some all over the place. In general, the list didn't change much:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems good to me, irrc there was a test case checking this table agaisnt litellm's model_price JSON, can we port that over to here as well? 🤔
…e JSON)\n\n- Skips models not present or intentionally N/A\n- Compares input/cached/output costs per 1M and token limits when available\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…Rs\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…ints in validator\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
…oq, cloudflare)\n\nCo-authored-by: openhands <[email protected]>
| add_fail(f"input_cost mismatch: mdx={mdx_input_cost} vs litellm={exp_input_cost}") | ||
|
|
||
| # Cached input cost | ||
| if exp_cached_cost is not None or mdx_cached_cost is not None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
GPT-5 explanation for why it cares about None on cached input, but not on input or output:
Cached input cost: We treat it as both a price and a capability signal (prompt caching support). So the validator enforces presence parity and numeric accuracy:
- Both None → OK
- LiteLLM None, MDX number → fail (docs claim caching where provider doesn’t report it)
- LiteLLM number, MDX None → fail (docs missing a provider-reported caching price)
- Both numbers → compare within tolerance
Input/output costs: These are fundamental but occasionally missing in LiteLLM for preview/edge cases. To avoid false failures due to incomplete upstream data, we only compare when both sides provide numbers; if either is None, we skip strict enforcement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It makes sense to me... WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
This PR updates the OpenHands LLMs documentation to match the source of truth in the Agent SDK.
Source of truth:
openhands-sdk/openhands/sdk/llm/utils/verified_models.pyVERIFIED_OPENHANDS_MODELSChanges:
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001,gpt-5-codex,claude-opus-4-1-20250805,kimi-k2-0711-previewdevstral-small-2505Why:
Files changed:
openhands/usage/llms/openhands-llms.mdxCo-authored-by: openhands [email protected]
@enyst can click here to continue refining the PR