Proof Portal

Project overview

Omarchy

ProbeLabsviewing a historical run

A proof layer — requirements, tests and verified fixes — for two of Omarchy's subsystems: the application menu (launcher scripts, QML model, JSONC config, search and selection) and the lock screen (lock scripts, QML, PAM authentication). Scope is deliberately limited to those components of omacom/omarchy; the rest of the distribution is not covered.

Viewing historical run 9c6b374Oct 2, 2026, 04:42 AMpr/6525Back to current
Back to findings
Known issueKI-MENU-SEARCH-SCORE-RANKING

searchScore ranking anomalies: apps promoted in-tier, root exact-labels swamped, multi-term matches collapse

OpenOpenLow

Low-severity issue, currently open.

Description

The issue as recorded.

Executed probes: an app and a menu row with equal scores rank app-FIRST (the -5 within-tier nudge). That violates the contract in the code comment 'App rows sort after all menu items' (F15d). An exact label at root scores base 2 while the identical exact label nested deeper scores base 0 (F15f). The root row therefore ranks below its nested twin, and the depth tie-break loses effect. A multi-term query that matchesQuery accepts across fields (one term on the label, one on the description) scores in the unmatched baseline band. That ranks it below a single-field pure match (F15e2 - measured 78000 for the accepted query).

Affected requirements

The requirement(s) this issue violates — click through to the spec.

Severity, explained

Why this is rated the way it is — and the scoring signals behind the rating (each ⓘ explains the term).

LowRated severity — the impact if this issue is exploited or hit.
why this rating
Risk-rated
risk area
Correctness
Security classification
Not a security surface
CVE surface
None

How it's proven

The reproducer — an actual test that drives the real code and shows the issue happening. Run it yourself, or peek the test and the source it covers.

Known issue reproducedprofileknown_issue_reproducerprovesSW-REQ-260922-SJ7P
Reproducer test
Run it yourself
node pocs/menu-probes.js ../shell/plugins/menu/MenuModel.js
Covers (2)
Last run Sep 30, 2026, 11:02 PM

Reproduction steps

Technical steps for your engineers to confirm the issue by hand.

node pocs/menu-probes.js ../shell/plugins/menu/MenuModel.js

What protects you, and the fix

What limits your exposure today, and the planned remediation.

What protects you now

Ranking anomalies reorder results but never hide them; the wanted entry stays on the results list

The fix

give multi-term queries an aggregation across per-term scores; make the root/nested exact-label bands consistent; reconcile the app nudge with the documented ordering

Blast radius

If you touch this issue, what else may need re-checking — the requirements it affects and the code and tests that hang off them. Historical view: authored trace links only — automatically derived links aren't reconstructible for past runs.

Tracing blast radius…

Touch this finding and you re-check 1 requirements · 2 code files · 3 tests.

Requirements (1)
Code files (2)
  • Menu.qml
  • MenuModel.js
Tests (3)
  • menumodel-replay.test.mjs
  • report-reproducers.test.mjs
  • menu-test.sh

Per-requirement evidence

For each requirement this finding touches: the implementing code, verifying tests, and proof obligations that discharge it.

Implementing code (2)
  • shell/plugins/menu/Menu.qml
    loadProvidersForSearch
  • shell/plugins/menu/MenuModel.js
    searchScore
Tests & evidence (3)
  • test/node/menumodel-replay.test.mjs
  • test/node/report-reproducers.test.mjs
  • test/shell.d/menu-test.sh

Evidence trail

The raw evidence manifests behind this finding — superseded by the resolved reproducer above, kept here for traceability.

  • pocs/menu-probes.js
  • pocs/menu-probes2.js
  • pocs/menu-probes3.js
  • proof/evidence/ki-menu-search-score-ranking.yaml

Change history

Every recorded revision of this finding's source file — when it was added, edited, or re-classified, with the diff for each change.

Discussions

Discuss this with the proof team. Nothing changes in your audit automatically — you open a request and a staff member records any outcome inside the thread.

Sign in to discuss this with the proof team.Sign in