Totally fair to be cautious — but a few corrections:

1) A Firefox extension doesn’t need to expose its full source tree on GitHub to be legitimate. The reviewed and signed code is what matters, and that lives in the AMO package, not the README repo.

2) Version numbers aren’t lifecycle indicators — starting at 1.4.6 isn’t “pretending,” it’s just a choice.

3) “Polished site = AI = shady” is a leap. Clean design and decent copy aren’t evidence of malicious intent.

If you don’t trust it, that’s fine — but calling it shady without pointing to actual data access, permissions abuse, or telemetry is speculation, not analysis. If you do find something concrete, posting it would genuinely help everyone here.

Healthy skepticism is useful. Drive-by accusations, less so.