Got an idea for a Chrome extension? Describe it in plain English and PlugThis builds it. Real code, a real backend, ready for the Chrome Web Store. Refine it just by chatting. Connect Supabase for login and a database. Every change is saved as a version, so nothing is ever lost. When you're ready, we generate the icons, screenshots, and listing copy the store asks for. Everyone else builds web apps. We build Chrome extensions. That is the one thing we do.
Free Options
Launch Team / Built With
Dropbox SignSimple, secure eSignatures for the way your team works.
Promoted
Does the generated extension actually get reviewed and approved before hitting the store, or am I on the hook for submitting it myself?
@ahmetrtensjl1 Good to clarify. PlugThis submits it for you, you're not doing the manual upload. You connect your Chrome Web Store account once and it publishes directly, along with the listing, permission justifications, and privacy disclosures the store asks for.
What we can't do is approve it, that review is always Google's call, no tool can bypass it. So the flow is: we handle everything up to and including hitting submit, then Google runs their review. The difference is you're not stuck assembling the submission by hand, which is usually where people stall.
always wanted to experiement with Chorme extension but the setup process kept pushing me toward others projects. this makes the whole process feel much more approcahable.
@anthonywrinqsb That setup wall is exactly the thing that killed the idea for so many people. Manifests, service workers, build config, store rules, all before you write a single fun line of your actual idea. We wanted the barrier to be "what do you want it to do," not "spend a weekend configuring tooling first."
You should finally build that extension you kept putting off. If you do, tell me what it is, I'd genuinely love to see the first thing you ship with it.
Building a niche-focused SaaS myself, I love the "Lovable, but for X" positioning — going narrow lets you own the whole workflow. Curious: does PlugThis help with the Chrome Web Store review process too (manifest permissions, privacy disclosures)? That's usually the part that kills momentum for first-time extension builders.
Hi @kojimajunya Yes yes we do :D PlugThis tells you your extension's chrome webstore readiness, helps you generate assets and in one click push changes live to CWS.
Please do check out PlugThis and take it for a spin.
"Nowhere to go to build a simple extension for yourself" really nails it — I've got a handful of 15-minute browser itches I never build because the manifest/service-worker setup kills the momentum every time. Since the code is real MV3 that I own, does a build stay Chrome-only, or can the same prompt target Firefox/Edge too? Curious how far the "one thing we do" focus stretches across browsers.
@lennoxbeflying Glad that line landed, and go build those 15-minute itches, they're exactly the sweet spot.
On browsers: today a build is Chrome-first, and the store side is built specifically around the Chrome Web Store. But since everything it generates is standard Manifest V3, the same output already runs on Edge with little to no change, because Edge is Chromium underneath. So realistically it's Chrome and Edge from one build.
Firefox is the honest gap. It supports MV3 but with enough differences in APIs, manifest quirks, and signing that "mostly works" is not good enough, so I would rather do it as a proper target than half-ship it. So the "one thing we do" focus stretches cleanly across the Chromium browsers now, and Firefox is a deliberate next step rather than a checkbox we pretend to have ticked.
Is Firefox the one you'd actually need, or would Chrome and Edge cover your itches? That genuinely helps me prioritize.
What happens when Chrome changes a manifest requirement?
@levi_mitchell1
@levi_mitchell1 The manifest isn't hardcoded into some template you download and own forever. Generation, validation, and sanitizing all happen on our side against the current Chrome rules. So when Google changes a manifest requirement, we update that logic in one place and every new extension people generate follows the new rule immediately.
You don't have to track the spec, learn what changed, or patch boilerplate yourself.
Being honest about the edge: an extension you already published stays as it was shipped, so if a change affects it, you would regenerate and re-publish.
But the "keep up with Chrome's moving target" burden sits with us, not you, which is exactly the part that usually makes people abandon extensions.
What made you ask? Have you been bitten by a manifest change breaking something before?
Congrats on the launch Udaya and team. 🥳
Building chrome extension is not trivial, you need to understand chrome APIs, manifest, permissions and what not. Just having a super easy way to create an extension with 3-4 prompts makes PlugThis worth it. I’ve created few extensions already and the experience was a breeze.
Wonder if the coverage for other browsers is in the roadmap
@cjgiridhar Hi Chetan! Thank you. Glad to have you as one our early users. Your feedback was the reason we built chrome store readiness, asset generation and one click connect to update extensions directly on chrome webstore. Take a bow 🙇 As of now we are focussed on chrome and edge browsers. May be later we might do Safari and Firefox.
Honest question: Claude Code or Codex can already build Chrome extensions better than it , with unlimited revisions and customization. What's the real differentiator here — what's the magic that those general-purpose tools can't replicate? And are you ready to survive that race? I love innovation, but if the existing giants can do the same thing better and cheaper, it's hard to justify investing time in a niche tool. I think you understand where I'm coming from, but I'm genuinely curious to hear your answer. Thanks!
@riponcm Fair question, and I'd rather answer it straight than dodge it.
You're right that Claude Code and Codex can write extension code, and for a developer who already lives in a terminal and wants maximum control, that's a genuinely great path. I'm not going to pretend we out-code a frontier coding agent at raw flexibility. So the differentiator isn't "we generate better code." It's that we're not really in the codegen business, we're in the "get a published extension" business.
Three things that gap covers:
First, the user. Claude Code assumes you're a developer with Node, a build setup, and the patience to wire tooling. A huge number of people with a good extension idea can't or won't do that. For them a general agent isn't a cheaper option, it's a non-starter. We meet the person who says "I don't really code" and still get them shipped.
Second, the last 10%, which is where extensions actually die. A general agent hands you code and stops. It doesn't scope your permissions and flag the ones you declared but never use, doesn't give you a live preview of your popup and side panel without loading unpacked, doesn't write your Chrome Web Store listing, permission justifications, and privacy disclosures, and doesn't publish to the store for you. That whole pipeline is the part people abandon, and it's Chrome-specific, not general coding.
Third, purpose-built means fewer wrong turns. Reviewers on this very launch mentioned general LLMs hallucinating manifest v3 configs and handing back outdated structures. Because we only do one thing, the output stays pinned to current MV3 rules, validated and sanitized, so you spend less time debugging setup and more time on your actual idea.
On surviving the race: general agents will keep getting better, and honestly that helps us, because our value was never the token generation. It's the opinionated, end-to-end workflow around a specific outcome. A frontier model is a better engine, but most people don't want an engine, they want the finished car, plus someone who knows exactly how to get it past inspection.
Different job, different user. I think that's a defensible place to stand, and I appreciate you pushing on it.