Clarify review requirements for forked applications

[ruibaby]

Clarify when forked plugins and themes qualify for an independent marketplace listing, reducing minor variants that increase users' selection burden.

• Require upstream contribution attempts, source disclosure, verifiable differences, and a maintenance plan.
• Reject minor cosmetic changes, personal preferences, and AI rewrites without sufficient independent value.
• Require evidence of discontinued upstream maintenance and completed maintenance work for successor applications.
• Distinguish discontinued projects from repository migrations and inactivity.
• Update the submission checklist and guideline version/effective date to 2026-09-07.

Validation:

• pnpm check:ci
• pnpm build
• git diff --check
• Verified page rendering and navigation to the new sections in the local development preview.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-07T02:45:09.756816Z	6457e4e	PR opened

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying with    Cloudflare Workers

The latest updates on your project. Learn more about integrating Git with Workers.

Status	Name	Latest Commit	Preview URL	Updated (UTC)
✅ Deployment successful! View logs	docs	6457e4e	Commit Preview URL Branch Preview URL	Sep 07 2026, 02:44 AM

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6457e4e777

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Preserve the exception for missing contribution records

For a derived application with no upstream contribution history, this checklist says a contribution record is required, while §4.2.1 explicitly permits an honest explanation when no record exists (and §4.2.2 allows the same when contribution channels are unavailable). Applicants following the pre-submission checklist could therefore conclude that they are ineligible despite satisfying the detailed rules; require a contribution record or an explanation for its absence here.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

[JohnNiang]

LGTM