Browser Extensions tools directory
A curated directory of frameworks, libraries, and tools specifically designed for building, testing, and monetizing Manifest V3 browser extensions across Chrome, Firefox, and Safari.
Showing 12 of 12 entries
Plasmo
open-sourceA comprehensive framework for building browser extensions with built-in support for React, Tailwind, and automatic Manifest V3 generation.
Pros
- + Automatic HMR for content scripts and background workers
- + Built-in support for assets and environment variables
- + Streamlined cross-browser builds for Chrome, Firefox, and Edge
Cons
- − Opinionated project structure
- − Abstraction layer can complicate highly custom build configurations
WXT
open-sourceA next-generation framework for developing browser extensions with a focus on developer experience and Vite-based builds.
Pros
- + Fastest build times using Vite
- + Excellent TypeScript auto-completion for extension APIs
- + Zero-config entry point management
Cons
- − Newer ecosystem compared to older boilerplates
- − Documentation is still maturing for complex use cases
ExtensionPay
freemiumA payment service designed specifically for browser extensions that works without a backend server.
Pros
- + No backend code required to handle subscriptions
- + Works across Chrome, Firefox, and Safari
- + Direct integration with Stripe
Cons
- − Transaction fees on top of Stripe
- − Limited to specific payment flows
CRXJS Vite Plugin
open-sourceA Vite plugin that converts your Vite project into a Chrome Extension with minimal configuration.
Pros
- + Uses standard Vite configurations
- + Excellent HMR for popup and options pages
- + Low overhead for existing Vite users
Cons
- − Manifest V3 support is in beta for some features
- − Can require manual configuration for complex background scripts
web-ext
open-sourceA command-line tool from Mozilla to help build, run, and test browser extensions locally.
Pros
- + Standard tool for Firefox extension development
- + Automated linting for manifest files
- + Easy signing and packaging for distribution
Cons
- − Primary focus is Firefox; Chrome support is secondary
- − Command-line only interface
Chrome Web Store Upload
open-sourceA Node.js module and CLI for uploading and publishing extensions to the Chrome Web Store programmatically.
Pros
- + Enables CI/CD pipelines for extension updates
- + Supports automated versioning
- + Reliable API wrapper
Cons
- − Requires initial manual API key setup in Google Console
- − No GUI for monitoring upload status
WebExtension Browser Polyfill
open-sourceA library that allows using the Promise-based browser.* APIs in Chrome, which currently uses callback-based chrome.* APIs.
Pros
- + Standardizes API calls across browsers
- + Eliminates 'callback hell' in extension code
- + Maintained by Mozilla
Cons
- − Adds a small bundle size overhead
- − Requires build-step integration for best results
Playwright for Extensions
open-sourceEnd-to-end testing framework with specific configurations for testing Chrome extensions in a real browser context.
Pros
- + Tests background workers and content script interactions
- + Supports screenshots and video of extension UI
- + Fast execution in headless modes
Cons
- − Complex setup for persistent context and permissions
- − Manifest V3 service workers can be tricky to inspect
Extension.js
open-sourceA zero-config development tool that allows you to start building extensions with a single command.
Pros
- + No configuration files needed to start
- + Supports React, Vue, and Svelte out of the box
- + Handles manifest generation automatically
Cons
- − Less flexibility for custom Webpack/Vite configs
- − Smaller community compared to Plasmo
Bedrock
paidA premium boilerplate for Chrome extensions including authentication, payments, and a landing page.
Pros
- + Pre-integrated authentication (SaaS style)
- + Includes a marketing site template
- + Production-ready architecture
Cons
- − High upfront cost for indie developers
- − May include more features than needed for simple tools
Plasmo CSUI
open-sourceA specific feature of Plasmo that allows developers to inject React components into web pages as Shadow DOM elements.
Pros
- + Prevents host page CSS from leaking into extension UI
- + Full React lifecycle support in content scripts
- + Easy positioning and mounting logic
Cons
- − Tied to the Plasmo framework
- − Shadow DOM can complicate some third-party library integrations
Zustand (for Extensions)
open-sourceA small, fast state-management library that is highly effective for syncing state between background scripts and popups.
Pros
- + Minimal boilerplate compared to Redux
- + Easy to wrap in storage listeners for persistence
- + Highly performant for frequent state updates
Cons
- − Requires manual setup for cross-context (background/popup) syncing
- − No built-in 'extension-native' storage adapter
.