Seven extensions we built, published and still support
Not a side project. Maintaining live extensions with real users is how we stay fluent in Manifest V3 behaviour, Chrome Web Store review policy and the operational reality of shipping to people who will leave a one-star review if you break their workflow.
Each one does a narrow job properly
Every extension here processes data locally, collects nothing, and requests the smallest permission set that makes it work.
No AI Overview — Clean Search
Removes Google’s AI Overview and AI Mode from search results, and optionally hides ads and clutter for a clean, fast page.
Background Remover Pro
Remove backgrounds and watermarks from any image, running entirely locally in your browser.
PixForge — Image Converter & Editor
Right-click any image on the web to save it in your chosen format. Editor, batch tools and screenshots — all 100% local.
Chrome Preferred Ads Blocker Pro
Blocks ads everywhere, with a one-click allowlist for the sites you choose to support.
PDF Page Studio
Turn any web page into a clean PDF, print, or full-page screenshot — edit, highlight and AI-summarise before saving.
What every one of these has in common
We hold our own published work to the standard we recommend to clients, because in a category where users are rightly suspicious, it is both correct and a competitive advantage.
The highest-return software most companies never consider building
Your staff spend six hours a day inside a browser, moving data between systems by hand. An extension can turn twenty fields of retyping into one click — typically in three weeks.
Maintaining live extensions is how we stay fluent
Browser extensions are an unusual discipline. The platform changes on a six-week cadence, the review policy is updated with limited notice, and the failure modes are specific enough that reading the documentation does not substitute for having shipped. Maintaining seven live extensions with real users keeps us genuinely current in a way that occasional client work would not.
Manifest V3 is the clearest example. It replaced persistent background pages with ephemeral service workers that the browser shuts down at will, restricted remotely hosted code, and changed how network requests can be modified. A great deal of the guidance available online still describes the previous model, and extensions built on those assumptions either fail review or behave unpredictably on a real user’s machine after their laptop has been asleep for four hours. We learned the practical consequences by having our own listings rejected and our own users report breakage — which is a better teacher than a changelog.
The same applies to the store review process. The most common rejection reasons are consistent — a permission requested without a clear justification, a privacy policy that does not match the declared data usage, a description that overstates functionality, and remotely hosted code. Our first-submission approval rate is high because we run this process several times a year rather than once, and we bring that to client publications.
There is a commercial argument too, and we would rather state it than pretend otherwise. Publishing consumer utilities is how an unfamiliar firm demonstrates competence before a contract exists. You can install one of these, look at what it asks for, read the privacy declaration and judge for yourself whether we build things carefully. That is worth more than a case study nobody can verify.
Every extension on this page processes data locally, collects nothing, requests the narrowest permission set that makes it work, and is still maintained. That is the standard we hold ourselves to, and it is the standard we apply to internal tools we build for businesses.
Common rejection causes
- A permission requested without a clear, specific justification in the listing.
- A privacy policy that does not match the declared data usage.
- A description that overstates or misrepresents functionality.
- Remotely hosted code, which Manifest V3 prohibits outright.
- Screenshots or promotional assets that do not reflect the actual product.
Cross-browser reality
Chrome and Edge ship from one build with essentially no additional work. Firefox uses a compatible but not identical API surface and needs a modest compatibility layer. Safari requires wrapping in a native application shell and going through Apple’s review — a meaningfully larger undertaking that we advise against unless your user base genuinely requires it.
Show us the workflow your team repeats forty times a day.
We will tell you within a day whether an extension can remove it, and roughly what that would cost. Most focused internal tools are three weeks and under ₹2.2 lakh.
Direct line
+91 70033 91355Mon–Sat · 9:30 AM – 7:30 PM IST · Sealdah, Kolkata