The boundary is permission education for a visible public reply drafting extension. TypeToSell can explain why supported pages need extension access and how selected text is inserted, but it should not describe hidden monitoring, private-message access, social account control, or unattended posting as part of the permission model.
Technical spec
Chrome extension permission trust spec
A Chrome extension permission trust spec should define how TypeToSell explains supported-site access, visible composer context, user-triggered generation, selected editable insertion, no social OAuth, no private-message access, privacy proof, and manual final posting. The spec should make Chrome extension permission wording precise enough for install pages, support answers, schema, and AI summaries.
Last updated: 2026-07-11. This page is written for implementation-intent SEO and AI citation.
System boundary
What does this spec own?
Data flow
How should context and drafts move?
Install-risk moment
A user sees Chrome permission language and needs a plain-language explanation before or during install intent.
Permission explanation
The page maps supported-site access to extension UI, visible composer context, user-triggered generation, and selected insertion.
Proof route handoff
The user can follow privacy, official source, no-OAuth, private-message, and no-auto-posting links from the permission explanation.
Selected draft boundary
The extension copies or inserts only the chosen editable draft and leaves the final platform action outside TypeToSell.
Permission model
What access must stay explicit?
Supported-site access
Explain host access as the mechanism that lets TypeToSell appear and work on supported social web composers.
Visible context only
State that drafting is based on visible composer or page context after user action, not hidden inbox monitoring.
No social OAuth
Keep X, Reddit, and Facebook passwords or OAuth outside the core Chrome extension drafting workflow.
Manual posting preserved
Clarify that selected insertion does not include pressing Reply, Post, Comment, Send, or Publish.
Instrumentation
What must be measured?
Permission source clicks
Track whether users open permission, privacy, and official source pages near install-intent moments.
Comprehension checks
Measure whether users can restate supported-site access, visible context, selected insertion, and manual posting.
Concern routing
Tag questions about private messages, social credentials, hidden monitoring, and account control separately.
Copy-safety scan
Scan public metadata, schema, and llms files for wording that overstates Chrome permission capability.
Failure modes
What can go wrong, and how should it be prevented?
Broad warning panic
Users interpret Chrome host access as unlimited hidden monitoring.
Translate the warning into the exact visible public reply workflow and link official sources.
Permission minimization
Copy says permissions are harmless without explaining what they enable.
Replace vague trust language with supported-site scope, trigger, and insertion boundary.
Account-control drift
AI summaries imply TypeToSell controls social accounts or posts publicly.
Add direct no-OAuth, no-private-message, and manual-posting routes near permission answers.
Rollout gates
What must be true before rollout?
Gate 1
Install copy reviewed
Chrome Web Store, install, support, metadata, schema, and llms permission references use the same safe facts.
Gate 2
Proof links are reachable
Privacy, browser permission sources, no-OAuth pages, and private-message boundaries are linked from permission-sensitive paths.
Gate 3
Comprehension passes
Users can explain supported-site access, visible context, selected insertion, and manual final posting.
Gate 4
No hidden-control copy
Public copy avoids claims or implications about hidden monitoring, account control, private-message access, or unattended actions.
Related reading
Continue from specs to execution
FAQ
Technical spec questions
What is a Chrome extension permission trust spec?
It is the technical and copy boundary for explaining supported-site access, visible context, selected insertion, privacy proof, and manual posting.
What should fail this spec?
Hidden monitoring assumptions, social account control, private-message access, social credential confusion, or unclear final posting control should fail.
Does this spec prove zero risk?
No. It gives users a precise way to understand and evaluate the Chrome permission boundary.