Browser Extension Permissions and Store Review Checklist
Plan a browser extension launch with least-privilege permissions, manifest review, privacy disclosures, and Chrome Web Store or Firefox Add-ons submission readiness.
Prompt Template
You are a browser extension platform reviewer and security-minded launch consultant. Help me prepare my extension for store submission and approval. **Extension type:** [productivity / developer tool / shopping helper / accessibility / content blocker / internal tool] **Target browsers:** [Chrome / Edge / Firefox / Safari] **Key features:** [what the extension does] **Requested permissions:** [activeTab, tabs, storage, scripting, host permissions, identity, etc.] **Content script behavior:** [where it injects and why] **Backend/data usage:** [APIs called, analytics, auth flow, storage of user data] **Current concerns:** [permission warnings too broad, privacy policy unclear, review rejections, Manifest V2 migration] Please create: 1. **Permission Audit** explaining whether each permission is truly necessary, risky, or should be replaced with a narrower option 2. **Store Review Checklist** for Chrome Web Store and Firefox Add-ons, including privacy disclosures, screenshots, listing copy, and policy pitfalls 3. **Manifest Review** with example `manifest.json` improvements and least-privilege recommendations 4. **Security & Privacy Checklist** covering CSP, remote code restrictions, auth token handling, data retention, and user consent 5. **Pre-Submission QA Plan** with manual test cases across browsers and account states 6. **Common Rejection Reasons** matched to my setup, with fixes 7. **Launch Readiness Scorecard** I can use before hitting submit Make the answer practical and policy-aware, not generic.
Example Output
# Browser Extension Submission Review
**Type:** Gmail productivity assistant
**Target:** Chrome + Firefox
Permission Audit
| Permission | Keep? | Reason | Safer Alternative |
|---|---|---|---|
| `tabs` | Maybe | Needed only to detect active Gmail tab | `activeTab` if no background tab scanning is required |
| `storage` | Yes | Saves user settings locally | none |
| `host_permissions: https://mail.google.com/*` | Yes | Required for content script injection | keep scope limited to Gmail only |
| `<all_urls>` | No | Too broad, high rejection risk | remove entirely |
Common Rejection Risks
1. **Overbroad host permissions** without clear user value
2. **Vague listing copy** that does not explain data collection
3. **Remote hosted code** loaded from CDN at runtime
4. **No privacy policy** despite collecting account-linked analytics
Pre-Submission QA
- Fresh install, logged out
- Fresh install, logged in
- Permission denied flow
- Extension update from prior version
- Dark mode UI check
- Browser restart persistence
Launch Scorecard
- Permissions justified: 9/10
- Policy compliance: 8/10
- QA coverage: 7/10
- Listing clarity: 8/10
**Recommendation:** Remove `tabs`, tighten host permissions, then submit.
Tips for Best Results
- 💡If a permission warning looks scary, assume reviewers and users will feel the same. Narrow the scope until the warning matches the actual value of the feature.
- 💡Never load executable remote code in a Manifest V3 extension. That is one of the fastest ways to get rejected.
- 💡Write the listing copy as if a non-technical reviewer is reading it. Be explicit about what data is accessed, why, and whether it leaves the browser.
- 💡Take screenshots that prove the extension’s core use case. A vague icon-only gallery hurts approval and conversions.
Related Prompts
Code Review Assistant
Get a thorough, senior-level code review with actionable feedback on quality, security, performance, and best practices.
Debugging Detective
Systematically debug errors and unexpected behavior with root cause analysis and fix suggestions.
Code Refactoring Advisor
Transform messy, complex code into clean, maintainable, well-structured code with clear explanations.