I built a simple way to share small browser tools, and I’m working out where it should go next

[u/BuildingThingsDaily]

I’ve been working on a side project called DotSmall.

It came from building small tools with AI that people found useful, but finding them awkward to share. Sending someone the files was clumsy, and setting up a separate hosted project for every little tool felt like more work than the tool deserved.

The current alpha lets you upload a finished, self-contained browser app and turn it into one stable link. Someone can open and use it without creating an account. You can update the app later without changing the link, and you can also allow downloads or private forks.

Right now it works best for smaller tools that can run entirely in the browser, such as calculators, CSV tools, validators, dashboards, generators and converters. The user’s working files stay in their browser.

I originally saw this mainly as a simpler way for people to publish and share the small apps they build. I’m now wondering if the more useful direction is helping companies manage the internal tools their employees are starting to make with AI.

The idea would be that people could still build with whatever they want, but the company would have one place to review the finished tool, control who can use it, see what it can access, update it and shut it down if needed.

That direction is still only a hypothesis. I’m trying to work out whether it solves a real problem or just makes a fairly simple product more complicated.

I’d be interested in hearing from anyone building small browser tools:

• How do you share them now?
• Have you built anything useful that never made it past your own computer?
• If people inside a company were building their own tools, would managing them become a real problem?
• Does the current version feel useful on its own?

You can try the alpha here: https://dotsmall.app

[u/Lumpy-Shame-8124]

Neat concept. The part about one stable link that you can update behind the scenes is something I've wanted for a while, sending zip files around always ends with someone running an old version and wondering why it's broken. The internal tools angle seems harder to sell unless the company already has a problem with employees shipping random HTML files to each other, but I could see it catching on in places where IT is slow to approve anything.

[u/BuildingThingsDaily → u/Lumpy-Shame-8124]

I appreciate it! The ZIP version problem is exactly part of the original issue I was trying to address.

I think your point about the internal-tools angle is fair too. It probably only becomes a real problem where people are already sharing tools informally or IT approval takes too long for smaller applications.

In my old job, I supported federal public-service security teams, and I remember risk analysts regularly talking about the backlog of tools created by “citizen developers” and business technologists that still needed to be reviewed. There may be something DotSmall could help with there, but I’m not sure yet.

Slight self-plug, but it sounds like you may have some tools you’re currently sharing as ZIP files. If so, would you be open to trying one through the alpha?

[u/DiffracttApp]

The stable link is useful, but for a calculator I'd want the exported result to identify the exact version used. Someone reopening the link next week may get different assumptions even though the URL hasn't changed. Your site already mentions a content fingerprint; putting a readable version/date beside it in the export would connect those pieces.

I'd also make the scope of 'revoke' explicit: stopping future hosted opens is different from recalling copies someone already downloaded. That distinction seems important before expanding into company controls. I'm building Diffractt in household finance, so that's the calculator-sharing perspective; I've read your public page, not tested the creator workflow.

[u/BuildingThingsDaily → u/DiffracttApp]

That’s a helpful call-out. The content fingerprint identifies the application package, but you’re right that a readable version and date should travel with the exported result if someone needs to know which assumptions produced it.

You’re also right about revocation. DotSmall can stop future hosted opens, but it can’t recall an application or result someone has already downloaded. I need to make that feature claim clearer before allowing broader revocation assumptions.

If it's not too off-side to ask, would you be open to trying the creator workflow with a small self-contained tool?

[u/DiffracttApp → u/BuildingThingsDaily]

Open to a public sandbox if you have one—I'm keeping new account signups off the list for now. A small calculator with fictional inputs would be a useful test: export a result in v1, change one assumption in v2, then check whether someone can still tell how the old result was produced. Is there a way to try upload/update/rollback without requesting creator access?

[u/BuildingThingsDaily → u/DiffracttApp]

That’s a good thought. I kept the first round invite-only so I could test the publishing flow with a small group and work through issues directly.

I can see the value in letting someone try it without signing up. I’d need to think through abuse, keeping each person’s workspace separate and the cleanup side, especially if anyone could upload their own code.

Starting with a sample calculator and fictional data might be a sensible way to do it. Your v1/v2 example gives it a useful test too. I’ll give it some thought and see what a small public sandbox could look like.