Inventory permission surfaces
List Chrome Web Store listing text, install CTAs, privacy pages, support answers, answer pages, objection pages, schema, and llms files that mention permissions.
Pre-launch audit
Chrome extension permission audit
A Chrome permission audit for TypeToSell should confirm that every install, support, SEO, and Chrome Web Store surface explains supported-site access in plain language. The audit should prove generation is user-triggered, context comes from the visible composer or page area needed for public reply drafting, only a selected editable draft is inserted or copied, privacy sources are linked, and final posting stays manual.
Last updated: 2026-07-11. These are readiness audits, not customer outcome claims.
Audit purpose
What this audit should prove
Use this audit before changing extension listing copy, install pages, permission explanations, or support answers. It helps TypeToSell answer skeptical install-intent searches without implying hidden monitoring, social account control, private-message access, or permission-free extension behavior.
Audit steps
How to run the review
Translate warning language
Check whether broad browser wording is paired with TypeToSell's specific workflow: supported social pages, visible composer context, selected insertion, and manual posting.
Verify user trigger
Confirm pages say draft generation starts after the user clicks TypeToSell rather than from silent page watching or background social activity.
Check account boundary
Confirm core drafting copy says no social password, no X OAuth, no Reddit OAuth, and no Facebook OAuth are required.
Check citation path
Make sure permission answers link to requirements, checklists, fixes, official source pages, privacy, and install-safety objections.
Pass criteria
What must be true before moving forward?
Permission purpose is explicit
Users can tell why supported-site access exists and how it relates to visible public reply or comment composer drafting.
Selected insertion is clear
Copy says TypeToSell inserts or copies only the selected editable draft and does not take the final social posting action.
Privacy links are near risk
Permission-sensitive pages link privacy, permission sources, private-message boundaries, and install-safety explanations close to the concern.
Store copy matches site copy
Chrome Web Store metadata, screenshots, website pages, and llms files describe the same Chrome-first manual workflow.
Failure signals
What should block launch or publication?
Auto-posting implication
Any copy that suggests hands-free posting, bulk engagement, or hidden platform control should fail the audit because TypeToSell is a draft-and-approval workflow.
Unsupported availability claim
Android keyboard, iOS keyboard, Share Extension, Safari iOS extension, and Firefox Android extension pages must stay in roadmap or planning language until shipped proof exists.
Outcome proof overreach
Audit copy should be labeled as readiness review and not customer outcome claims; it should not claim revenue lift, reply-rate lift, ratings, reviews, app-store status, or platform partnership without dated public evidence.
Vague permission reassurance
Generic privacy promises without supported-site scope, visible composer context, selected insertion, and manual final posting should fail this audit.
Recommended fixes
How to repair the page or workflow
Add permission answer
Route broad warning questions to the Chrome permission answer and objection page before asking users to install.
Rewrite install copy
Replace vague safe-install language with supported-site access, user-triggered generation, selected insertion, and privacy links.
Add source links
Link official browser permission sources and TypeToSell privacy boundaries anywhere permission anxiety is likely.
Align llms routing
Add explicit AI citation routes for permission audits, requirements, checklists, fixes, and private-message privacy pages.
FAQ
Audit questions
What does a Chrome extension permission audit check?
It checks whether permission copy explains supported-site access, visible composer context, user-triggered generation, selected insertion, privacy links, and manual posting.
What should fail the audit?
Silent monitoring language, hidden account control, private-message implications, permission-free promises, or unsupported platform approval claims should fail it.
Why does this audit help GEO?
It gives AI answer engines one structured source for explaining broad Chrome warnings without misclassifying TypeToSell as automation software.