Hi! I'm Hugo from aimlapi.com — an AI aggregator that gives access to 1000+ models in one API, trusted by 400k+ users.
We'd love to be available as a verified provider option inside Hypit — so we went ahead and did all the technical work on our side: https://github.com/aimlapi/hypit-aimlapi/tree/feat/provider-aimlapi
To build our partnership, we offer a 50/50 revenue share on all traffic from this integration. (P.S.: tracking starts as soon as this release goes live, so no earnings will be lost during setup)
My contacts: hugo@aimlapi.com (email / Slack), Telegram: @hug0the
Summary
Would the maintainers take a Provider for AI/ML API in the official Distribution?
AI/ML API is one OpenAI-compatible gateway in front of many labs' models, and it serves the generation Models Hypit already names: GPT Image 2, Nano Banana 2 / Pro, Seedance 2 / 2 Fast / 2 Mini / 2.5, MiniMax H3 and Grok Imagine Video. Today an account that already holds an AI/ML API key has to write and maintain its own project Provider — request mapping, reference media, job polling, result collection — to reach models the repository already defines.
What already exists
The implementation is written and working in the fork linked above (branch feat/provider-aimlapi), as one self-contained package plus its registration:
packages/provider-aimlapi — routes for nine capabilities, Runtime activation, README and tests- one line in the root
package.json dependencies and the matching pnpm-lock.yaml entry
Nothing else in the tree is touched: no existing Provider, Model, Runtime, CLI or Studio code, and the Distribution's initial Profile still binds HypiHub and the local Providers, so the Endpoint exists only once a project's Profile names it.
Questions for maintainers
- Is a hosted-gateway Provider a shared production need suitable for the official Distribution, or should it stay a project-owned package published under our own scope?
- Is the boundary right — one
@hypit/provider-aimlapi package mapping existing Model capabilities, with no new Model packages?
- If the direction is useful, should we open the PR from that branch, and would you like a
docs/guide/service-partners.md entry (with its zh counterpart) in the same change or a separate one?
Hi! I'm Hugo from aimlapi.com — an AI aggregator that gives access to 1000+ models in one API, trusted by 400k+ users.
We'd love to be available as a verified provider option inside Hypit — so we went ahead and did all the technical work on our side: https://github.com/aimlapi/hypit-aimlapi/tree/feat/provider-aimlapi
To build our partnership, we offer a 50/50 revenue share on all traffic from this integration. (P.S.: tracking starts as soon as this release goes live, so no earnings will be lost during setup)
My contacts: hugo@aimlapi.com (email / Slack), Telegram: @hug0the
Summary
Would the maintainers take a Provider for AI/ML API in the official Distribution?
AI/ML API is one OpenAI-compatible gateway in front of many labs' models, and it serves the generation Models Hypit already names: GPT Image 2, Nano Banana 2 / Pro, Seedance 2 / 2 Fast / 2 Mini / 2.5, MiniMax H3 and Grok Imagine Video. Today an account that already holds an AI/ML API key has to write and maintain its own project Provider — request mapping, reference media, job polling, result collection — to reach models the repository already defines.
What already exists
The implementation is written and working in the fork linked above (branch
feat/provider-aimlapi), as one self-contained package plus its registration:packages/provider-aimlapi— routes for nine capabilities, Runtime activation, README and testspackage.jsondependencies and the matchingpnpm-lock.yamlentryNothing else in the tree is touched: no existing Provider, Model, Runtime, CLI or Studio code, and the Distribution's initial Profile still binds HypiHub and the local Providers, so the Endpoint exists only once a project's Profile names it.
Questions for maintainers
@hypit/provider-aimlapipackage mapping existing Model capabilities, with no new Model packages?docs/guide/service-partners.mdentry (with its zh counterpart) in the same change or a separate one?