Monarch Extensions
This was previously “Support for raycast extensions”.
OP (@hummingbirdmoth): “This would cover a lot of current requests and attract substantial interest from existing raycast users.”
Developer response
Monarch will be featuring its own unique extensions ecosystem.
After doing research on a couple open source projects, unfortunately supporting Raycast extensions directly presents unique challenges to Monarch that it doesn’t to similar projects.
Besides that, it also presents limitations to Monarch’s extension platform design that just don’t make sense to replicate simply for the ability to port over extensions that would actually be easier to build with Monarch’s API anyway.
Simply porting extensions also runs the risk of setting the expectation that because other launchers do something a certain way that Monarch will do it that way, and as we’ve seen with recent releases from v0.8+ this is not going to be the case.
To be clear I fully expect that Monarch’s Extensions platform will go further and be more powerful than Raycast’s or Alfred’s. I can’t say too much right this moment, but I’ve been thinking on this for quite some time and so far I’ve been able to do things that I was unaware a Mac app could do. It just doesn’t make sense to withhold this power for the sake of parity with tools we intend to surpass.
Log in to comment and vote
Comments13
Alex Casasola
Jun 7, 2024
As much as I don't initially like the idea of importing Raycast extensions in, it might actually be a smart play. Think about it in the sense of market penetration. It's very much a chicken vs egg problem. For people to create extensions in your ecosystem, it has to already have a large consumer base. For you to get the large consumer base, you likely need extensions.
Supporting Raycast extensions allows you to build off their momentum (the same way other chromium browsers do) and instantly gives your app a much bigger value add.
stigdreyer
Oct 25, 2024
I created an account just to upvote this feature. @rmdashrfv Keep up the good work, really excited to be part of this!
rmdashrfv
Oct 25, 2024
Hey! Thank you so much for the encouragement and for taking the time to create an account and participate in the voting! It helps and I appreciate it a lot!
This one has risen up faster than anticipated!
joshmoxey
Aug 12, 2024
This would be huge for me. All the integrations on Raycast with my favourite apps is probably the coolest part of Raycast
rmdashrfv
Aug 17, 2024
Support for most Raycast extensions is currently the plan!
joshmoxey
Aug 23, 2024
Amazing, looking forward to this 🙌🏻 thank you
Sidar
Mar 5, 2025
I think this shouldn’t be a high priority. Supporting a different app’s extensions is a bit of a risky play. Piggybacking off of a competitor’s ecosystem leaves Monarch with minimal control and may not be sustainable later down the line. It would be a huge boost in the short term, but considering how substantial of a feature extensions are, it shrinks the presence of Monarch itself within its own app. Not only that, but if there’s a big change to how Raycast works with its extensions, well now Monarch is going to be expected to change too, at risk of upsetting all those users who got used to the Raycast extension support. And I don’t even think I need to elaborate on the fact that Raycast could then have a scary level of influence over Monarch.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think extensions are a must. That being said, relying on Raycast here doesn’t seem like the right play. I actually just came to this forum (and just so happened to immediately see this suggestion) to leave my own ideas regarding extension support, so if you’re interested you can find them there.
rmdashrfv
Mar 6, 2025
Going to be some news around this soon!
I think that this may have been worded wrong. When I was saying support for Raycast Extensions, I was saying that Monarch and Raycast extensions would have a similar enough API that Raycast extensions could be used within Monarch largely without issue. Not so much that I’d be tapping directly into their extensions store.
Late last year I realized that the best way to do extensions is not the way that Raycast did it, which I think they too will realize in ~3 years or so.
Everything you say in your comment is true
Sidar
Mar 6, 2025
Ah alright, that makes a lot more sense. Not entirely sure why but I assumed you meant Monarch would natively run the extensions identically to how Raycast does, which in hindsight sounds stupid (in my defense I was very tired).
Though, may I ask what exactly you think Raycast does wrong with their extensions?
rmdashrfv
Jun 7, 2024
Perhaps. Supporting Raycast extensions was an idea I had — and it is a good idea — but when I looked at the data, it seems like it might not be as important as is marketed. It's a fun thing to work on though ... I'm on the fence currently
hummingbirdmoth
Jun 8, 2024
The way I see it, building the framework would obviate the need to consider and develop many individual feature requests. Workflows for homebrew, obsidian, password managers, web integrations and a thousand other things already exist.
Daniel Haaf
Dec 29, 2024
Hi,
As someone who create tools for work, I would love extension support in Monarch. I have a quite extensive self-made Raycast-extension which I would like to test when support comes to your app. While I do love Raycast, the limitations are obvious and I hope Monarch has the things I need to take this a bit further. Thanks.
This is a simple screenshot of my extension which I would like to migrate to Monarch in the future.
rmdashrfv
Dec 29, 2024
Hi there! The major focus in Monarch’s design is to prevent those limitations that come from Raycast extensions, so feel free to say where you feel previous tools fell short because I want Monarch’s platform to be as flexible as possible without compromising security and stability! Thank you for your support!