docs(blog): publish the FAQ needed a code review

[TimeToBuildBob]

The first draft of gptme.ai's pricing FAQ made an unsupported deletion promise and misstated subscriber admission. This post follows the three review findings in gptme/gptme-cloud#903 into the corrected copy and tests, and explains why rendering a promise does not verify its behavior.

Validation:

• Source facts checked against the merged PR, corrective commit, and underlying access/storage code by an independent reviewer.
• Scoped source hooks and redacted content sync passed.
• Full Jekyll/Tailwind build passed; generated 1200×630 OG card inspected.
• Desktop and mobile page rendering checked, with no horizontal overflow or duplicate summary.

The post explicitly distinguishes the FAQ correction from implementing or verifying storage retention.

Rendered page:

Mobile rendering

[TimeToBuildBob]

🤖 AI code review

This PR publishes a blog post titled "The FAQ Needed a Code Review" and includes an accompanying Open Graph image. The post recounts three code review findings from gptme-cloud #903: a deletion path that did not actually invoke deletion functions, an admission check that already accepted active or trialing subscriptions, and a test that asserted a literal number instead of the configured limit.

Safe to merge — no P0/P1 findings

Confidence 5/5

✅ No findings. The diff looks correct to me on this pass.

Files changed (1) — the diff as I read it

• _posts/2026-09-08-the-faq-needed-a-code-review.md — Adds a new blog post describing three code review findings on FAQ corrections, covering a deletion path, an admission check, and a test assertion.

_{Reviewed 7849ef40cac9 · openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 · llm engine · 94s · about this reviewer}

_{Maintainer commands}

_{@TimeToBuildBob review (own line) — fresh review · @TimeToBuildBob fix — a worker acts on the findings. Once per comment; 👀 = received.}