[BUG] [v0.0.7] `cortex plugin new --advanced` generates Cargo.toml identical to basic template — missing dependencies for TUI hook features used in advanced lib.rs

[lucaserevo]

Project

cortex

Description

cortex plugin new --advanced generates an advanced lib.rs that references TUI hook APIs (for example widget registration patterns), but the generated Cargo.toml is byte-for-byte identical to the basic plugin template. Advanced code may imply additional dependencies or at least a different dependency story; as written, developers get no signal in the manifest about what is required versus provided by the host runtime. This creates onboarding friction and makes it harder to understand whether the scaffold is supposed to compile as-is in isolation.

Error Message

Debug Logs

System Information

Ubuntu 24.04 / 0.0.7

Screenshots

https://github.com/springoliver/bounty_challenge_report_image/blob/main/49110.png

Steps to Reproduce

1. Open a terminal in a repo where cortex is configured.
2. Run cortex plugin new --advanced.
3. Compare output/behavior with the issue narrative for this ID.

Expected Behavior

The reporter expects cortex to match documented CLI/TUI contracts for this flow—correct output, honest flags/help, and no silent contradictions—consistent with the problem statement at the top of this rewrite.

Actual Behavior

cortex plugin new --advanced generates an advanced lib.rs that references TUI hook APIs (for example widget registration patterns), but the generated Cargo.toml is byte-for-byte identical to the basic plugin template. Advanced code may imply additional dependencies or at least a different dependency story; as written, developers get no signal in the manifest about what is required versus provided by the host runtime. This creates onboarding friction and makes it harder to understand whether the scaffold is supposed to compile as-is in isolation.

Additional Context

No response

[atlas-cortex]

❌ Validation Summary — Issue #53504

LLM validity check failed (score: 0.05). The submission includes a specific title and a screenshot, but the body text contains clear evidence of AI generation or template farming. Specifically, the expected behavior references 'the problem statement at the top of this rewrite', and the reproduction steps include a generic placeholder ('Compare output/behavior with the issue narrative for this ID') rather than concrete actions. Because the reproduction steps are not actionable and the text is auto-generated boilerplate, the issue does not meet the standards for a valid bug report.

Confidence Score: 4/5

• This issue does not meet the minimum requirements for a valid bounty submission.

Validation Checks

Check	Status	Detail
Media Evidence	✅ Pass	Evidence found and accessible
Spam Detection	✅ Pass	Score: 24% — no spam signals
Duplicate Detection	✅ Pass	No significant overlap with existing issues
Code Verification	✅ Pass	Bug confirmed in source code (confidence: 100%) — The code in src/cortex-cli/src/plugin_cmd.rs confirms that `cortex plugin new
Edit History	✅ Pass	No suspicious edits
LLM Evaluation	❌ Fail	LLM validity check failed (score: 0.05). The submission includes a specific title and a screenshot, but the body text co...

Action Items

• Ensure the issue describes a genuine, reproducible bug
• Provide clear steps to reproduce and evidence
• Issue has moderate similarity to existing issues, suggesting partial overlap.

Validation Pipeline

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
    A["Issue #53504"] --> B{"Media Check"}
    B -->|"✅ Found"| C{"Spam Check"}
    C -->|"✅ Clean"| D{"Duplicate Check"}
    D -->|"✅ Unique"| CV{"Code Verify"}
    CV -->|"✅ Confirmed"| E{"Edit History"}
    E -->|"✅ Normal"| F{"LLM Evaluation"}
    F -->|"❌ Failed"| Z["❌ Invalid"]
    style Z fill:#ff6b6b,color:#fff

Loading

Raw Evidence

{
  "media": {
    "hasMedia": true,
    "accessible": true,
    "urls": [
      "https://github.com/springoliver/bounty_challenge_report_image/blob/main/49110.png"
    ],
    "evidence": [
      "Found 1 media URL(s) via markdown parsing",
      "1 URL(s) accessible"
    ]
  },
  "spam": {
    "overallScore": 0.23958333333333331,
    "details": "template=0.41 (1 recent issues compared); burst=0.25 (2 issues in 2h window); parity=0.00; overall=0.24 (threshold=0.7)"
  },
  "duplicate": {
    "isDuplicate": false,
    "similarity": 0.5378104060731256,
    "topSimilar": [
      {
        "issueNumber": 53503,
        "title": "[BUG] [v0.0.7] cortex history default (view) path always reports not implemented",
        "similarity": 0.5378104060731256
      },
      {
        "issueNumber": 51235,
        "title": "[BUG] [v0.0.7] `cortex plugin new` generates Cargo.toml without `[workspace]` — `cortex plugin build` always fails inside any Rust workspace",
        "similarity": 0.533650569830731
      },
      {
        "issueNumber": 53115,
        "title": "[BUG] [v0.0.7] cortex plugin install and plugin new show inconsistent error messages for empty plugin name",
        "similarity": 0.5073721444331581
      },
      {
        "issueNumber": 53393,
        "title": "[BUG] [v0.0.7] `cortex plugin list` and `plugin show` ignore `[plugin]` section — display directory name, 0.0.0 version, empty description for all plugins",
        "similarity": 0.5044318928215004
      },
      {
        "issueNumber": 51832,
        "title": "[BUG] [v0.0.7] /plugins info missing-plugin clears the input but shows no plugin info or error",
        "similarity": 0.5026273629733942
      }
    ]
  },
  "editHistory": {
    "fraudScore": 0,
    "editCount": 0,
    "details": "No edits detected"
  },
  "codeVerification": {
    "plausible": true,
    "confidence": 1,
    "reasoning": "The code in `src/cortex-cli/src/plugin_cmd.rs` confirms that `cortex plugin new --advanced` uses the exact same `generate_cargo_toml` function and `CARGO_TEMPLATE` as the basic plugin scaffold. This results in a `Cargo.toml` that is identical between the two, despite the advanced template referencing TUI hook APIs and having a different `lib.rs`.",
    "codeEvidence": "In `src/cortex-cli/src/plugin_cmd.rs`, both `scaffold_basic_plugin` and `scaffold_advanced_plugin` call `generate_cargo_toml(plugin_id)` which uses the same `CARGO_TEMPLATE`. The generated `Cargo.toml` is identical for both basic and advanced templates.",
    "screenshotValid": true,
    "screenshotReasoning": "The screenshot analysis returned valid."
  },
  "llmValidity": {
    "score": 0.050000000000000044,
    "reasoning": "The submission includes a specific title and a screenshot, but the body text contains clear evidence of AI generation or template farming. Specifically, the expected behavior references 'the problem statement at the top of this rewrite', and the reproduction steps include a generic placeholder ('Compare output/behavior with the issue narrative for this ID') rather than concrete actions. Because the reproduction steps are not actionable and the text is auto-generated boilerplate, the issue does not meet the standards for a valid bug report."
  },
  "rules": {
    "codeResults": {
      "passed": [
        {
          "ruleId": "content.no-profanity",
          "category": "content",
          "severity": "flag",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue should not contain excessive profanity or abusive language",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "content.reasonable-length",
          "category": "content",
          "severity": "flag",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue body should not exceed 15000 characters (possible spam dump)",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "content.has-context",
          "category": "content",
          "severity": "penalize",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue should mention the affected page, component, or URL",
          "weight": 0.2
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "media.require-evidence",
          "category": "media",
          "severity": "require",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue must include at least one screenshot or video URL",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "media.must-be-accessible",
          "category": "media",
          "severity": "require",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "All media URLs must be publicly accessible (HTTP 200)",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "media.no-placeholder-urls",
          "category": "media",
          "severity": "reject",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Media URLs should not be placeholder or example URLs",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "scoring.suspicious-edits",
          "category": "scoring",
          "severity": "penalize",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Penalize issues with concerning edit history (fraud score > 0.3)",
          "weight": 0.25
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "spam.high-score-reject",
          "category": "spam",
          "severity": "reject",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Reject issues with spam score above 0.85",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "spam.generic-title",
          "category": "spam",
          "severity": "penalize",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Title should not be a generic/template title",
          "weight": 0.4
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "spam.body-is-title-repeat",
          "category": "spam",
          "severity": "penalize",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Body should not be a simple repetition of the title",
          "weight": 0.5
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "spam.no-ai-filler",
          "category": "spam",
          "severity": "flag",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Body should not contain obvious AI-generated filler phrases",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "validity.min-body-length",
          "category": "validity",
          "severity": "reject",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue body must be at least 50 characters",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "validity.min-title-length",
          "category": "validity",
          "severity": "reject",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue title must be at least 10 characters",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "validity.no-empty-body",
          "category": "validity",
          "severity": "reject",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue body must not be empty or only whitespace",
          "weight": 1
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "validity.has-steps-or-description",
          "category": "validity",
          "severity": "penalize",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue body should contain structured content (steps, expected/actual behavior)",
          "weight": 0.3
        },
        {
          "ruleId": "validity.not-a-feature-request",
          "category": "validity",
          "severity": "flag",
          "passed": true,
          "message": "Issue should describe a bug, not a feature request",
          "weight": 1
        }
      ],
      "failed": [
        {
          "ruleId": "scoring.duplicate-threshold",
          "category": "scoring",
          "severity": "penalize",
          "passed": false,
          "message": "Issue has moderate similarity to existing issues, suggesting partial overlap.",
          "weight": 0.3
        }
      ]
    },
    "llmInstructions": [
      "Always prioritize concrete evidence (screenshots, videos, URLs) over the quality of the written description. A poorly written report with clear visual proof of a bug is VALID. A beautifully written report with no evidence is INVALID.",
      "A valid bug report must contain enough information for an engineer to reproduce the issue. If the steps to reproduce are missing or impossibly vague (\"it just broke\"), the issue is INVALID.",
      "You MUST call the deliver_verdict function exactly once. Do not output a JSON object manually. Do not output your verdict in plain text. Use the tool.",
      "Be highly suspicious of submissions that follow a rigid template: same structure, same phrasing, with only the page name or URL swapped. These are template-farmed and should be INVALID. Look for: identical sentence structure, placeholder-like descriptions, formulaic \"Steps to Reproduce\".",
      "When similar issues exist, the OLDER issue (lower issue number) always takes precedence. The newer submission is the duplicate, never the other way around.",
      "Confidence scores must be calibrated: use 0.9+ only when evidence is unambiguous and complete. Use 0.5-0.7 when the issue is borderline. Use below 0.5 when you are genuinely uncertain. Never default to 0.5 — commit to a direction.",
      "Do not give the benefit of the doubt. Missing evidence means INVALID. Unclear reproduction steps means INVALID. Inaccessible media means INVALID. The burden of proof is on the submitter.",
      "In the reasoning field, explain your step-by-step analysis BEFORE stating your conclusion. Cover: evidence quality, clarity, spam signals, and duplicate overlap in that order.",
      "Never mention internal scoring thresholds, rule IDs, detection heuristics, or system architecture in the recap field. The recap is public-facing. Keep reasoning technical but recap user-friendly.",
      "If the issue body reads like AI-generated boilerplate (phrases like \"It is important to note\", \"Furthermore\", \"In conclusion\", excessive politeness, no specific technical details), treat it as strong evidence of spam. AI-generated issues with no real bug details are INVALID.",
      "If the pre-computed media check says media URLs exist, verify the description matches what a screenshot would show. If the description talks about a login page but the context suggests the screenshot is of something unrelated, flag this as suspicious.",
      "Never soften a verdict out of sympathy. \"I can see you tried hard but...\" is not acceptable. If the submission does not meet criteria, it is INVALID regardless of apparent effort.",
      "Write your reasoning and recap in a professional, neutral tone. Do not be sarcastic, condescending, or emotional. State facts.",
      "The recap field must be 2-3 sentences maximum. It will be posted as a public comment. No bullet points in recap — use flowing prose."
    ],
    "totalCodeRules": 17,
    "totalLLMRules": 14,
    "hasReject": false,
    "hasFailed": true,
    "penaltyScore": 0.3,
    "summary": "1/17 code rules failed | 1 PENALIZE | 14 LLM instructions active"
  }
}

_{Validated by Atlas • 2026-05-04}