Skip to content

Clarify plugin catalog submission policy for unofficial provider auth #74

@SeoFood

Description

@SeoFood

Context

PR TypeWhisper/typewhisper-plugins#1 was closed because it implemented a Claude OAuth plugin by relying on Claude Code OAuth credentials and identifying requests as Claude Code so that a Claude Pro/Max subscription would accept them.

The contributor did follow the documented submission path: the live plugin docs currently point people to TypeWhisper/typewhisper-plugins for community plugin submissions.

Relevant public entry points:

Problem

The current docs explain how to submit a community plugin, but they do not clearly state the catalog policy boundary for provider authentication. That makes it easy for contributors to assume that any technically working plugin belongs in the catalog, including plugins that rely on unofficial client impersonation, subscription-token workarounds, or provider auth flows that are not intended for third-party integrations.

Proposed update

Clarify in the plugin submission docs that TypeWhisper catalog submissions must use authorized provider access paths.

Specifically, the docs should say that catalog plugins must not:

  • impersonate a provider's first-party client
  • use consumer subscription credentials as API access unless the provider explicitly supports that third-party integration path
  • rely on unofficial OAuth clients, copied client IDs, hidden endpoints, or token refresh flows intended for another first-party product

Acceptable examples should include:

  • user-provided API keys or official developer platform billing
  • officially documented SDK or OAuth flows intended for third-party apps
  • local-only integrations that do not require provider account impersonation

Scope

Primary docs repo changes should live here in typewhisper.com for the public Add-ons / Build a Plugin page.

Also mirror the same policy in TypeWhisper/typewhisper-plugins CONTRIBUTING.md, either in the same follow-up if we handle cross-repo docs together or as a linked companion PR.

Acceptance criteria

  • English and German plugin development pages mention the provider-auth policy boundary.
  • The submission section still points to TypeWhisper/typewhisper-plugins, but now explains what kinds of provider integrations are acceptable for catalog review.
  • TypeWhisper/typewhisper-plugins/CONTRIBUTING.md gets equivalent guidance or a linked follow-up issue/PR tracks that mirror update.
  • The wording stays provider-neutral and does not single out one contributor as the reason for the policy.

Related

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    area: contentWebsite content and copydocumentationImprovements or additions to documentationeffort: smallLow effort (hours)

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions