This Is Freaking Awesome!!!  🔗 **Source:** [This Is Freaking Awesome!!!](https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2097874691696599128/?rw_tt_thread=True) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [wordpress-plugins, plugin-security, wordpress-org, security-automation] > author: Matt Mullenweg > source: X (@photomatt) > reference: https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/2097874691696599128/ > date created: 2026-09-10 > > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > > > [!warning] Fairness note. Matt Mullenweg is a named individual currently involved in > > active litigation (the WP Engine dispute). This note attributes his statement, and the > > statement he's quote-tweeting, to their respective authors, and doesn't adopt either > > person's characterization as independently verified fact. > > # 🏷️ Title: THIS IS FREAKING AWESOME!!! > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) - [🔄 Refactor Appendix](#-refactor-appendix--this-is-freaking-awesome) ### 🔗 References - [🗒️ Notes — Mullenweg's reply and Pérez's quoted post, separated by author](#️-notes) - [🔄 Refactor Appendix — why this piece gets zero Literature atoms](#-refactor-appendix--this-is-freaking-awesome) ## 📝 Summary - **What happened.** Matt Mullenweg quote-tweeted a post by David Pérez (@davidperezmk) with an enthusiastic reaction — "THIS IS FREAKING AWESOME!!!" — followed by a one-line correction: "But you left off a T." Pérez's original post claims that "automatic security reviews for plugin updates" launched on WordPress.org that day. - **Why it matters.** Mullenweg's own contribution is an endorsement and a minor correction, not a new factual claim. The substantive claim — that a new automatic security review feature for plugin updates shipped on WordPress.org — belongs to Pérez, and the captured text of Pérez's post is truncated ("providing insights into reports for plugins that have reached a ...") before it states specifics. - **Key stakeholders.** Mullenweg (WordPress.org co-founder, endorsing the claim); David Pérez, the post's original author; the wider community of WordPress plugin developers and site owners the feature would affect if accurately described. - **Risks and tradeoffs.** None stated by Mullenweg's own text. Whatever risk or tradeoff the actual feature carries isn't addressed in the truncated capture of Pérez's post. - **Bottom line.** This is Mullenweg amplifying someone else's claim, plus a typo note ("left off a T") whose referent isn't identifiable from the captured content. There's no independent factual claim from Mullenweg here to evaluate. ## 📖 Main Content The captured post is a quote-tweet: Mullenweg's own text is two short sentences — enthusiastic agreement, then a specific, minor correction pointing out that something (unspecified in the capture) is "left off a T." Beneath his text, Reader's capture embeds the post he's replying to, from David Pérez, which makes the actual substantive claim: that "automatic security reviews for plugin updates were launched today," described as making "sites that use plugins from WordPress org better and more secure" and as "a huge step forward, providing insights into reports for plugins that have reached a ..." — the sentence is cut off mid-thought in the capture, with WordPress.org itself written as "WordPress org" (no dot) in Pérez's text. That truncation matters for how this note is written: the specific mechanism, scope, or detail of "automatic security reviews for plugin updates" is not fully stated in what was captured, so this note can't verify or restate it as a complete claim. What is captured attributes the claim to Pérez, a third party, not to Mullenweg. Mullenweg's endorsement ("THIS IS FREAKING AWESOME!!!") signals agreement with the substance, and his co-founder role at WordPress.org gives that endorsement some informal weight — but agreement with an outside account of a feature launch is not the same as Mullenweg making the claim himself, and the post doesn't add any detail Pérez's account didn't already contain. The "you left off a T" line is the one detail unique to Mullenweg's own text, and it's also the one detail this note can't resolve: nothing in the captured content indicates which word is missing a "T." It reads as a lighthearted, in-context correction (plausibly a typo in Pérez's original post, corrected between when Mullenweg replied and when this was captured, or referring to a detail outside the truncated portion) — flagged here as unresolved rather than guessed at. ## 🗒️ Notes - Mullenweg's full reply, in order: > [!quote] > THIS IS FREAKING AWESOME!!! But you left off a T. - Pérez's quoted post, truncated in the capture at "reached a ...": > [!quote] > I'm happy to say that automatic security reviews for plugin updates were launched today. This will make sites that use plugins from WordPress org better and more secure. This is a huge step forward, providing insights into reports for plugins that have reached a ... - The referent of "you left off a T" is not identifiable from the captured content — no earlier or later text clarifies which word or name is missing the letter. - Reader's capture shows Pérez's post timestamped "Posted Sep 9, 2026 at 9:53PM"; Mullenweg's reply was saved to Reader the next day, 2026-09-10. - Not a transcript; no timestamps apply, so no timestamped segment links are used here. ## 📚 References - [David Pérez (@davidperezmk) — the post Mullenweg is quote-tweeting](https://twitter.com/davidperezmk/status/2097805506245018003) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase Mullenweg reacted enthusiastically to someone else's announcement that WordPress.org had launched automatic security reviews for plugin updates, and added a quick note that they'd missed a letter somewhere. There isn't a second idea to paraphrase — the substance of the claim being reacted to belongs to Pérez's post, not to Mullenweg's own words, and Pérez's account is itself cut off before it finishes describing the feature. ## 📰 Newsletter Matt Mullenweg gave an enthusiastic public thumbs-up today to a claim, posted by David Pérez, that WordPress.org launched automatic security reviews for plugin updates — framed as making plugin-using sites "better and more secure." Worth watching for anyone who maintains or reviews WordPress plugins, though the captured post cuts off before describing exactly how the review works or what "insights into reports" means in practice — treat Pérez's account as the claim to verify against WordPress.org's own documentation, not as confirmed by this endorsement alone. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - **Plugins/Security liaison overlap:** if accurate, an automatic security review feature for plugin updates is directly relevant to plugin-developer education and documentation — but this note can't confirm the feature's scope from the truncated source, so treat any outreach content as pending verification against WordPress.org's own announcement, not this post. #### OSPO - **Security Management:** the claimed feature (automatic security reviews for plugin updates) is squarely an OSPO vulnerability-intake and review-process concern if it's accurately described — worth a verification pass against WordPress.org's own release notes before treating it as confirmed. #### Community - Not applicable beyond the general interest any plugin-security change would have for plugin authors; no specific community program or engagement content in this post. #### WordPress - **Plugins:** the most directly relevant subteam — an automatic review step for plugin updates would affect review throughput and security-liaison workflows if the claim holds up as described; this note recommends verification, not action, since the source is truncated. - Not applicable across the remaining subteams (Core, Core Performance, Core AI, Core Program Team, Mobile, Playground, Community, Training, Marketing, Support, Design, Documentation, Photos, TV, Polyglots, Accessibility, Meta, CLI, Hosting, Tide, Openverse, Themes) — none appear in this post. #### The WPOCC - Not applicable to this source — no fellowship, funding, or governance content. #### FAIR - Not applicable to this source — no federation, provenance, or governance-artifact content. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: WordPress.org's own documentation or release notes, checked directly, confirm an "automatic security review" step for plugin updates matching Pérez's description. - H2: The truncated portion of Pérez's post ("plugins that have reached a ...") specifies a plugin-count or maturity threshold that determines which plugins the review applies to. - H3: Mullenweg's "you left off a T" refers to a specific word in Pérez's post (plausibly "WordPress org" missing a period, or another term) that gets corrected in a later, uncaptured reply. ### 📊 Methodology - H1: check WordPress.org's plugin-directory documentation and the make.wordpress.org Plugins team blog directly for an announcement matching this description, rather than relying on the secondhand social-media account captured here. - H2: locate Pérez's full, untruncated original post to read past "reached a ..." for the missing detail. - H3: locate the full reply thread beyond this single quote-tweet capture to see whether Pérez or Mullenweg clarifies the "T" reference. ### ❓ Questions - What exactly does "automatic security review" check for, and at what point in the plugin-update pipeline does it run? Not stated in the captured (truncated) text. - Which plugins are in scope — all plugins, or only those meeting some threshold ("plugins that have reached a ...")? The capture cuts off before answering this. - What word was Mullenweg referring to in "you left off a T"? Unresolved from the captured content. ### 🔮 Future Research - Whether WordPress.org's official channels published a matching announcement, and how its description compares to Pérez's secondhand summary here. - Whether plugin developers report any visible change in their update-review process following this claimed launch. ### 💡 Implications - **Practice.** If accurate, an automatic security review step for plugin updates would be directly relevant to plugin-developer release workflows — but this note stops short of treating it as confirmed, since the source is a truncated third-party post, not WordPress.org's own documentation. - **Policy/governance.** A plugin-review-process change at WordPress.org is a governance-relevant event for the plugin ecosystem broadly; verify through primary WordPress.org channels before acting on it. - **Security.** The core subject of the claim itself — automatic review specifically aimed at plugin-update security — is worth tracking closely once independently confirmed. - **Education.** Not applicable beyond the general note above under DevRel. - **Funding models.** Not applicable to this source. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - **Reading level estimate:** Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ≈ 6 for Mullenweg's own two sentences; the embedded Pérez text runs slightly higher (≈9) due to longer, clause-heavy sentences ("providing insights into reports for plugins that have reached a..."). #### 👀 Visual learners - **Present:** a profile photo for each author; no charts, diagrams, or explanatory graphics describing how the claimed review feature works. - **Improve:** a simple before/after diagram of the plugin-update review pipeline would help readers evaluate the claim, if and when it's independently confirmed. #### 🔊 Aural learners - **Present:** none — text-only exchange. - **Improve:** not a natural fit for a two-sentence reaction and a truncated third-party quote. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - **Present:** plain, informal language throughout ("THIS IS FREAKING AWESOME," "you left off a T"). - **Improve:** a brief plain-language definition of what "automatic security review" means in the WordPress.org plugin-directory context would help readers unfamiliar with the existing manual review process it's presumably changing. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - **Present:** none — nothing hands-on or actionable in this two-line reaction post. - **Improve:** not applicable to this content type. #### 🧠 Logical learners - **Present:** none strong — the claim's logical structure can't be fully traced because the source text is truncated before it finishes its own reasoning. - **Improve:** the missing end of Pérez's sentence is exactly what a logical reader needs; sourcing the untruncated original post would close this gap. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - **Present:** the exchange itself (quote-tweet, public reply, public correction) is a social-engagement structure. - **Improve:** none needed for this content type. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - **Present:** Mullenweg's own two sentences are short and self-contained, though full understanding requires the (truncated) quoted post beneath them. - **Improve:** none needed beyond noting the truncation limits self-contained understanding. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - **Present:** none — no ecological or systems-in-nature framing. - **Improve:** not applicable to this content. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment *Assessed from the captured HTML only — no live-page rendering, contrast, or focus-order review performed.* #### Screen reader semantics - **Present:** standard paragraph structure for both Mullenweg's reply and the embedded quoted post; a profile image is present for each author. - **Improve:** no alt text is present on either profile image in the captured markup — a screen reader user gets no announced description of either image. Maps to WCAG 2.2 SC 1.1.1 (Non-text Content). #### Keyboard navigation - **Not observed** — no interactive elements beyond standard links in the captured content; not testable from static HTML. #### Contrast and readability - **Not observed** — text styling and color contrast are theme-rendered by Reader/X, not present in the captured markup. #### Text resizing and reflow - **Not observed** — no reflow-relevant markup in the captured HTML. #### Media and captions - **Not applicable** — no video or audio content in this post. #### Forms and interactions - **Not applicable** — no forms or interactive input in this post. #### Standards reference - The one concrete gap identified maps to WCAG 2.2 AA 1.1.1 (non-text content — missing alt text on both profile images). The rest would need direct visual review of the live page to confirm or close. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - **Present:** none — a brief English-language exchange with no international or cross-cultural framing. - **Improve:** not applicable to this content type. #### Inclusive language - **Present:** neither post states either author's pronouns. Per house style, this note uses they/them for both Mullenweg and Pérez throughout, since pronouns aren't confirmed in the captured content, notwithstanding any pronoun usage elsewhere. - **Improve:** none needed beyond that convention. #### Neurodiversity support - **Present:** short, direct sentences from Mullenweg; Pérez's embedded text runs longer and more clause-heavy, and is additionally cut off mid-sentence, which could confuse a reader who doesn't notice the truncation. - **Improve:** marking the truncation explicitly (as this note does) rather than letting a reader assume the quoted post is complete. #### Representation - **Present:** two named individuals in a professional WordPress-community context. - **Improve:** none needed for this content type. #### Psychological safety - **Present:** warm, celebratory tone throughout; the correction ("left off a T") is delivered lightly, with no criticism attached. - **Improve:** none needed. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Not applicable to Mullenweg's own text — "THIS IS FREAKING AWESOME!!!" is an expression of enthusiasm, not an argument, and doesn't purport to be one. #### Fallacies - **Appeal to authority, unaddressed (Mullenweg's endorsement of Pérez's claim).** Mullenweg's enthusiastic agreement lends informal credibility to Pérez's claim given his WordPress.org co-founder role, but the post itself provides no independent verification of the claim's accuracy or completeness — agreement from a well-placed source isn't the same as confirmation. Worth flagging since a reader might reasonably (but not necessarily correctly) treat his reaction as tacit confirmation that Pérez's account is accurate and complete. - **Argument from an incomplete premise (Pérez's post, truncated).** Whatever reasoning Pérez was building toward in "providing insights into reports for plugins that have reached a ..." is cut off before the point is made — not a fallacy in the classical sense, but a genuine gap that makes the claim's completeness unverifiable from this capture alone. #### Tone of voice - Mullenweg's text: exuberant, all-caps, multiple exclamation points, followed by a low-key, friendly correction. Pérez's embedded text: measured, positive, promotional in register ("I'm happy to say," "a huge step forward"). ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) describes a move made by a party responding to an accusation of wrongdoing. Nothing in this exchange involves an accusation against anyone — Mullenweg is endorsing a positive claim about a security feature and pointing out an unrelated minor typo. The framework doesn't apply, and there's no benefit to forcing it onto content that contains no dispute. - **Deny:** Not applicable — no accusation exists to deny. - **Attack:** Not applicable — no credibility is challenged; if anything, Mullenweg's reply boosts Pérez's credibility by endorsing the claim. - **Reverse victim/offender:** Not applicable — no victim or offender role appears anywhere in this exchange. ## 🎯 Conclusion Mullenweg amplifies a third party's claim that WordPress.org launched automatic security reviews for plugin updates, adding only enthusiasm and an unresolved typo correction of his own — no independent factual claim from Mullenweg himself. The substantive claim belongs to David Pérez, and the captured version of it is truncated before it finishes describing the feature's scope. Practical next step for a reader: verify the claim against WordPress.org's own plugin-directory documentation or the Plugins team's own channels before treating "automatic security reviews for plugin updates" as a confirmed, fully-described feature. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — THIS IS FREAKING AWESOME!!! > Density: 0 Literature atoms, 0 Permanent candidates. See explanation below — this is not a shortfall, it's the correct call for this source. ### 📚 Literature Atoms **Zero Literature atoms, stated explicitly.** Mullenweg's own text contributes zero independent factual claims — it's an exclamation of enthusiasm plus an unresolved typo note. The one substantive claim present in the capture (automatic security reviews for plugin updates) belongs to David Pérez, a third party, and arrives truncated mid-sentence — not a complete, verifiable claim to atomize, and not Mullenweg's own statement to attribute to him. That leaves fewer than 2 strong, complete, attributable claims in this post. Per the density rule (fewer than 2 strong claims → zero atoms), none are emitted, and none are manufactured to hit a quota this source doesn't support. ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates **Zero Permanent candidates.** A Permanent candidate needs an evidence pointer into a Literature atom, and there are none here to point to. Nothing in this post clears the bar of a durable, reusable, fully-formed claim in Courtney's own voice — the one claim worth eventually building on (the plugin-review feature itself) is incomplete in this capture and belongs to a source this note hasn't independently verified. ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Locate WordPress.org's own announcement or documentation for "automatic security reviews for plugin updates" to confirm, complete, and (if warranted) atomize Pérez's claim from a primary source. — https://twitter.com/davidperezmk/status/2097805506245018003 #xref ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Verify whether WordPress.org shipped automatic security reviews for plugin updates as Pérez describes, using WordPress.org's own Plugins team channels, before citing this claim anywhere else. — context #wordpress-plugins #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Tweets/This Is Freaking Awesome!!!.md|This Is Freaking Awesome!!! by Matt Mullenweg]] ## Highlights - I'm happy to say that automatic security reviews for plugin updates were launched today. This will make sites that use ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m25w46mn088kftkmcrwyz6kq)) - Note: David Pérez's post, quote-tweeted — arrives truncated. The substantive claim is his, not Mullenweg's. - Tags: xref, plugin-security