Add gpt-oss local installation blog post

[eckartal]

• Complete beginner guide for running OpenAI's gpt-oss locally
• Step-by-step instructions using Jan AI
• Alternative installation methods (llama.cpp, Ollama, LM Studio)
• Performance benchmarks and troubleshooting guide
• SEO-optimized with FAQ section and comparison tables
• 4 supporting screenshots showing the installation process

Describe Your Changes

Fixes Issues

• Closes #
• Closes #

Self Checklist

• Added relevant comments, esp in complex areas
• Updated docs (for bug fixes / features)
• Created issues for follow-up changes or refactoring needed

---

Important

Adds a beginner guide in run-gpt-oss-locally.mdx for installing and running OpenAI's gpt-oss locally, with detailed instructions, benchmarks, and troubleshooting.

• Content:
  • Adds run-gpt-oss-locally.mdx with a beginner guide for installing and running OpenAI's gpt-oss locally.
  • Includes step-by-step instructions using Jan AI, and alternative methods (llama.cpp, Ollama, LM Studio).
  • Provides performance benchmarks, troubleshooting tips, and FAQs.
• SEO and Visuals:
  • SEO-optimized with comparison tables and FAQ section.
  • Includes 4 supporting screenshots of the installation process.

^{This description was created by for c41b046. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Caution

Changes requested ❌

Reviewed everything up to c41b046 in 2 minutes and 24 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 218 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 4 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. docs/src/pages/post/run-gpt-oss-locally.mdx:6

• Draft comment:
  The publication date (2025-08-06) is set in the future. Please confirm if this is intentional for scheduling.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50% According to the rules, we should not ask authors to confirm their intentions or make speculative comments. Setting future dates for blog posts is a common practice for scheduling content. There's no technical issue here - the date format is valid and will work as expected. The author likely set this date intentionally for content planning. The date being in the future could potentially indicate a typo where the author meant 2023 or 2024 instead of 2025. Even if it was a typo, the exact publication date is an editorial choice that doesn't affect functionality. The rules explicitly say not to ask authors to confirm their intentions. This comment should be deleted as it's asking for confirmation of intention, which is explicitly against the review rules.

2. docs/src/pages/post/run-gpt-oss-locally.mdx:211

• Draft comment:
  Add a newline at end-of-file to adhere to best practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While having a trailing newline is a common best practice, this is an extremely minor issue that would be automatically handled by most editors and linters. It doesn't affect functionality or readability. The rules state not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This seems to fall into that category. Having a trailing newline is indeed a widely accepted best practice in text files. Not having one could cause issues with some tools or when concatenating files. While technically correct, this is exactly the kind of minor, obvious issue that the rules tell us to avoid commenting on. It would be automatically caught by linters if it matters to the project. This comment should be deleted as it's too minor and obvious to be worth calling out in a PR review.

3. docs/src/pages/post/run-gpt-oss-locally.mdx:7

• Draft comment:
  There appears to be trailing whitespace after the ogImage path. It would be cleaner to remove the extra spaces after 'assets/gpt-oss%20locally.jpeg'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% While technically correct, this is an extremely minor formatting issue. The trailing spaces don't affect functionality since YAML parsers typically handle this fine. This kind of nitpicky formatting comment doesn't meet our bar for "clearly a code change required" and falls under "obvious or unimportant" in our rules. The spaces could theoretically cause issues in some strict YAML parsers. Also, maintaining clean formatting is generally good practice. Even if clean formatting is good practice, this is too minor to warrant a PR comment. If formatting is important, it should be handled by automated tooling/linting rather than manual review comments. This comment should be deleted as it points out an unimportant formatting issue that doesn't materially affect the code.

Workflow ID: wflow_NT5Q5KuHXqmCSyj3

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[github-actions]

Preview URL: https://9a3e27b4.docs-9ba.pages.dev