The first working version of a Chrome extension can be surprisingly quick to build.
A manifest defines the extension. A content script adds something to a page. A background worker coordinates events. A small interface exposes settings. Once the button appears and performs an action, the project feels close to completion.
That feeling is misleading.
While building MSG.AI for WhatsApp Web, I learned that the difficult work begins after the prototype succeeds. The hardest problems are compatibility, product boundaries, trust, and maintenance—not the first implementation.
A prototype only proves that the happy path exists
The first demo usually happens in one browser, one language, one account, and one page state.
Real users introduce everything the demo did not include:
- Different WhatsApp interface languages
- Narrow windows and unusual zoom levels
- Slow networks and interrupted uploads
- Accounts with different features enabled
- Messages containing quotes, reactions, media, or unusual formatting
- Tabs that reload halfway through a task
- Browser extensions that modify the same page
A feature that works once is evidence that the idea is possible. It is not evidence that the feature is reliable.
The gap between those two statements contains most of the engineering work.
The platform can change without telling you
A third-party extension does not control the application it extends.
WhatsApp Web can update its page structure, rendering behavior, or internal modules independently. A selector that has worked for months may suddenly stop matching. An injected control may appear in the wrong place. A message operation may need additional validation after a platform change.
Traditional application code depends on APIs with documented contracts. A browser integration often depends partly on behavior observed from the current page.
That changes the maintenance model. You need monitoring, fallbacks, and a willingness to stop safely when the page no longer matches expectations.
Shipping the extension is not the end of integration work. It is the beginning of an ongoing negotiation with a moving surface.
Reliability sometimes means doing less
When an extension cannot confidently identify the active conversation or sending state, continuing is dangerous.
For a cosmetic feature, a misplaced button is annoying. For a messaging feature, acting on the wrong chat can have business consequences.
The reliable choice is often to stop, explain the problem, and ask the user to retry after the page is in a known state.
This can feel like a poor user experience because the software refuses to complete the task. But visible refusal is better than invisible misbehavior.
I have become more interested in safe failure than in demonstrations where automation always appears to succeed.
Product scope is harder than feature implementation
Once an extension is connected to a communication tool, the list of possible features becomes almost unlimited.
Translation suggests AI replies. AI replies suggest knowledge bases. Customer lists suggest CRM synchronization. Media attachments suggest cloud storage. Task history suggests analytics. Each addition appears adjacent to something already built.
The technical argument for expansion is usually convincing. The product argument may not be.
Every new feature competes for space in a small interface. It creates settings, support questions, privacy explanations, and new states that interact with existing features.
The hard question is not “Can this be implemented?” It is “Does this still belong in the same tool?”
For MSG.AI, I try to keep the boundary around work that benefits from happening inside WhatsApp Web: understanding a message, drafting a response, reusing approved material, controlling a customer messaging task, and exporting selected information.
That boundary is imperfect, but having one is more important than making it sound comprehensive.
Privacy language must match the actual data flow
Browser extensions operate close to personal and business data. Users deserve a precise explanation of what happens to it.
It is easy to say “your data stays local.” The accurate version needs more detail.
Task state and settings can remain in browser storage. Ordinary WhatsApp sending does not need to route messages through an extension vendor's server. But an AI translation requires the relevant text to be processed by a model provider when the user requests it. A Google Drive media workflow requires OAuth authorization.
These distinctions affect architecture, documentation, and interface copy.
Trust is damaged when marketing language is broader than the implementation. The privacy statement should describe the system that exists, not the feeling the product wants to create.
Distribution creates a second product
Publishing to the Chrome Web Store introduces another set of work.
Permissions need to be understandable. Store screenshots need to reflect the real interface. Descriptions need to avoid claims the product cannot guarantee. Updates must be packaged and reviewed. Support channels must exist for users who encounter a platform change before the developer does.
The extension itself is one product. The installation, onboarding, documentation, licensing, updates, and support experience form another.
A technically good tool can still fail if users do not understand why it requests a permission or what to do after installation.
Support reveals the real interface
Developers see the architecture they designed. Users see the moment where the product stopped helping.
A support question such as “nothing happened” may hide several different causes: WhatsApp Web was not open, the number was invalid, the page was still loading, an account limit was reached, or the platform interface changed.
Good error reporting is therefore part of product design, not a debugging convenience.
The error should tell the user what failed, what has already happened, and what action is safe to try next. For a multi-recipient task, it should also preserve enough state to avoid sending the same message twice after recovery.
These details rarely appear in launch screenshots. They determine whether someone trusts the tool after the first failure.
The code is still important—just not sufficient
None of this means engineering quality matters less.
Clear context boundaries, persistent task state, idempotent page injection, narrow permissions, and observable message flows make the rest of the product possible. The point is that code solves only the problems that have been framed correctly.
The longer I work on MSG.AI, the more the project feels like a series of judgment calls expressed through software:
- What should be automatic?
- What must remain reviewable?
- What belongs in the browser?
- What data needs to leave it?
- When should the extension refuse to continue?
- Which feature is not worth its maintenance cost?
Those questions do not have permanent answers. The browser changes, the platform changes, and user expectations change.
Writing the first version proved that the extension could exist. Maintaining its boundaries is what turns it into a product.
Project page: MSG.AI.
