5 comments

  • aristofun 20 hours ago

    These guys solve same problem https://www.getmagical.com/ worth researching their experience

    • livrasand 18 hours ago

      Thanks for the link; I wasn't familiar with Magical.

      From what I can see, Magical focuses on general autofill, while Injectless is exploring a more declarative, least-privilege approach, where each site explicitly defines which fields it can expose and on which domains, with domain-level validation and explicit user control.

      Even so, comparing UX, adoption, and technical trade-offs with products like this is exactly the kind of signal I was looking for.

      • aristofun 16 hours ago

        They have pr had that as one of their initial features. Recently thy pivoted away from that to more ai and corporate use cases

  • flexagoon a day ago

    Since what you're building is similar to a password manager, you should probably do it the way they do. A browser extension + a native app for mobile. Mobile platforms have autofill APIs that password managers use to fill forms.

    • livrasand 18 hours ago

      I think this would probably be the closest comparison.

      The password manager model seems like the most realistic way to achieve a good user experience on mobile devices while maintaining strong context and domain validation on desktops.

      One difference I'm exploring is that Injectless is intentionally declarative and website-based (sites publish what they can inject, rather than the tool heuristically completing everything).

      I appreciate the perspective.