Proof Portal
Omarchy
ProbeLabs65 findings · 95 requirementsA 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.
`PATH` is being overriden inside `omarchy-menu`
Reported by pmpinto · filed Apr 28, 2026Closed upstream on 2026-04-30 by commit a677d6b7a316 (closed by dhh). GitHub close reason: completed.
At a glance
- 1 · What is claimed?
- Only the report text below — no validator has restated it as checkable claims yet.
- 2 · What does it affect?
- Not yet mapped to any requirement or component.
- 3 · Is it reproducible?
- No validation has been run yet.
- 4 · What remains unclear?
- Not validated yet: no claims, no reproducer.
- 5 · What happens next?
- Our staff decide whether the report is valid. Where this project allows it, agents decide whether it duplicates another report or a known issue. No decision has been recorded yet.
Original report
System details
Omarchy 3.6.0
What's wrong?
L5 in `omarchy-menu` sets PATH:
export PATH="$HOME/.local/share/omarchy/bin:$PATH"But install.sh already defines this:
# Define Omarchy locations
export OMARCHY_PATH="$HOME/.local/share/omarchy"
export PATH="$OMARCHY_PATH/bin:$PATH"Why is this an issue?
In my .config/hypr/envs.conf I set my PATH to first look for my custom scripts:
env = PATH,$HOME/scripts:$PATHThis not only makes it possible to tell hyprland where to look for custom scripts, but also allows me to create wrapper scripts around things like omarchy-menu with extra functionality.
For instance, I want to run a custom script right before the omarchy-lock-screen runs.
Instead of changing system files and risk having these changes removed on the next update, I create a $HOME/scripts/omarchy-lock-screen that runs my custom script and then explicitly runs $OMARCHY_PATH/bin/omarchy-lock-screen. This way I can keep using Super Esc, select Lock and benefit from both the default behaviour (and even updates to it) as well as my own custom scripts.
But that L5 is preventing me to do so.
View raw text
### System details Omarchy 3.6.0 ### What's wrong? L5 in [`omarchy-menu`](https://github.com/basecamp/omarchy/blob/069f0c35c7062e0b74bf498fdc6ee5a53fc86e6e/bin/omarchy-menu#L5) sets `PATH`: ```bash export PATH="$HOME/.local/share/omarchy/bin:$PATH" ``` But [install.sh](https://github.com/basecamp/omarchy/blob/069f0c35c7062e0b74bf498fdc6ee5a53fc86e6e/install.sh#L6-L10) already defines this: ```bash # Define Omarchy locations export OMARCHY_PATH="$HOME/.local/share/omarchy" export PATH="$OMARCHY_PATH/bin:$PATH" ``` --- Why is this an issue? In my `.config/hypr/envs.conf` I set my `PATH` to first look for my custom scripts: ```bash env = PATH,$HOME/scripts:$PATH ``` This not only makes it possible to tell hyprland where to look for custom scripts, but also allows me to create wrapper scripts around things like `omarchy-menu` with extra functionality. For instance, I want to run a custom script right before the `omarchy-lock-screen` runs. Instead of changing system files and risk having these changes removed on the next update, I create a `$HOME/scripts/omarchy-lock-screen` that runs my custom script and then explicitly runs `$OMARCHY_PATH/bin/omarchy-lock-screen`. This way I can keep using Super Esc, select Lock and benefit from both the default behaviour (and even updates to it) as well as my own custom scripts. But that L5 is preventing me to do so.
Validation
Not checked yet. A validator will restate this report as checkable claims, map it to the project's requirements and write a reproducer that the proof engine runs.
Linked
Not linked to any known issue, other report or change yet.
Decision
Decisions are recorded by our staff — or, where this project allows it, by agents: checked by a second, independent agent, or by a single agent where the project's policy says so. Any decision reached so far is shown below.
No decision has been recorded yet.