Skip to content

feat: add Astraflow provider support#699

Closed
ucloudnb666 wants to merge 2 commits into
usestrix:mainfrom
ucloudnb666:feat/astraflow-1783309395
Closed

feat: add Astraflow provider support#699
ucloudnb666 wants to merge 2 commits into
usestrix:mainfrom
ucloudnb666:feat/astraflow-1783309395

Conversation

@ucloudnb666

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

Adds Astraflow (by UCloud) as a supported LLM provider to Strix documentation.

Changes

  • Added Astraflow provider documentation (docs/llm-providers/astraflow.mdx)
  • Added Astraflow card to provider overview page
  • Added Astraflow to navigation in docs.json

About Astraflow

Astraflow is an OpenAI-compatible AI model aggregation platform by UCloud supporting 200+ models. It provides both global and China endpoints:

Since Astraflow is OpenAI-compatible, it works through Strix's existing LiteLLM integration without requiring code changes—users just need to configure the base URL and API key.

Signed-off-by: ucloudnb666 <ucloudnb666@users.noreply.github.com>
@greptile-apps

greptile-apps Bot commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Greptile Summary

This PR adds Astraflow to the Strix LLM provider docs.

  • New Astraflow provider setup page.
  • New navigation entry in docs/docs.json.
  • New Astraflow card on the provider overview page.

Confidence Score: 4/5

The documentation route looks valid, but the Astraflow setup example can give users a model value that does not route correctly.

  • The new page is reachable from the docs navigation and overview card.
  • The setup examples diverge from the existing OpenAI-compatible provider pattern.
  • Users copying the bare model name can hit LiteLLM provider/model resolution errors.

docs/llm-providers/astraflow.mdx

Important Files Changed

Filename Overview
docs/docs.json Adds the Astraflow provider page to the LLM provider navigation.
docs/llm-providers/astraflow.mdx Adds Astraflow setup instructions, but the model examples use bare names instead of the provider-qualified format used by sibling OpenAI-compatible docs.
docs/llm-providers/overview.mdx Adds an Astraflow card that links to the new provider page.
Prompt To Fix All With AI
Fix the following 1 code review issue. Work through them one at a time, proposing concise fixes.

---

### Issue 1 of 1
docs/llm-providers/astraflow.mdx:13
**Bare Model Skips Provider Routing**

When users copy this setup, `gpt-5.4` is passed as an unqualified LiteLLM model while the endpoint is configured through `LLM_API_BASE`. The sibling OpenAI-compatible docs use `openai/...` values for this path, so this example can fail provider/model resolution instead of routing the request to Astraflow.

Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "feat: add Astraflow provider support" | Re-trigger Greptile

Comment thread docs/llm-providers/astraflow.mdx Outdated
### Global Endpoint

```bash
export STRIX_LLM="gpt-5.4"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P1 Bare Model Skips Provider Routing

When users copy this setup, gpt-5.4 is passed as an unqualified LiteLLM model while the endpoint is configured through LLM_API_BASE. The sibling OpenAI-compatible docs use openai/... values for this path, so this example can fail provider/model resolution instead of routing the request to Astraflow.

Prompt To Fix With AI
This is a comment left during a code review.
Path: docs/llm-providers/astraflow.mdx
Line: 13

Comment:
**Bare Model Skips Provider Routing**

When users copy this setup, `gpt-5.4` is passed as an unqualified LiteLLM model while the endpoint is configured through `LLM_API_BASE`. The sibling OpenAI-compatible docs use `openai/...` values for this path, so this example can fail provider/model resolution instead of routing the request to Astraflow.

How can I resolve this? If you propose a fix, please make it concise.

Signed-off-by: ucloudnb666 <ucloudnb666@users.noreply.github.com>
@bearsyankees

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

marketing it seems? but happy to accept real PRs

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants