@m13v/s4l 1.7.2-rc.10 → 1.7.2-rc.14

package/mcp/dist/version.json

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 {
-  "version": "1.7.2-rc.10",
-  "installedAt": "2026-07-09T05:38:51.644Z"
+  "version": "1.7.2-rc.14",
+  "installedAt": "2026-07-10T04:31:17.238Z"
 }

package/mcp/manifest.json

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
   "dxt_version": "0.1",
   "name": "social-autoposter",
   "display_name": "S4L",
-  "version": "1.7.2-rc.10",
+  "version": "1.7.2-rc.14",
   "description": "Draft, review, approve, and autopilot X/Twitter posts.",
   "long_description": "## **⚠️ The disclaimer above is generic Claude boilerplate.** Anthropic shows the same warning on every plugin regardless of what it does; any plugin has the same level of access as any app you download from the internet.\n\nS4L is an open source product developed by Mediar.ai Incorporated, a VC-backed San Francisco-based startup.\n\nTo get started:\n\n1\\. Copy this prompt: **Set me up on S4L plugin end to end**\n\n2\\. Quit with CMD+Q, reopen Claude, paste into a new chat.\n\nWhat happens next:\n\n* About every 5 minutes S4L scans X for posts that match your topics and drafts replies in your voice.\n* Drafts show up as review cards, usually the first within a few minutes. Nothing is posted automatically; you approve each one.\n* Posting autopilot stays off until you explicitly turn it on.",
   "author": {

package/mcp/menubar/s4l_card.py

@@ -149,14 +149,14 @@ REJECT_REASONS = (
 # Client-side cap on tracked interactions per card (server clips at 50 too).
 MAX_INTERACTIONS = 50
 
-# Inline approve row: emoji + tooltip per approval level (button tag =
-# level). Level 1 = plain approve; 2+ = loved=True on the decision, with the
+# Inline approve row: glyph + tooltip per approval level (button tag =
+# level). Level 1 = plain approve; 2 = loved=True on the decision, with the
 # exact level shipped as an approve_level_N interaction for the feedback
-# digest.
+# digest. Monochrome text-presentation glyphs (U+FE0E) so the buttons stay
+# black-and-white in both appearances instead of rendering as color emoji.
 APPROVE_EMOJIS = (
-    ("👍", "Approve"),
-    ("😄", "Approve, really good pick"),
-    ("❤️‍🔥", "Approve, best of the best"),
+    ("✓︎", "Approve"),
+    ("♥︎", "Approve, best of the best"),
 )
 
 # Review-surface state mirrored to the state dir for out-of-process observers
@@ -884,12 +884,13 @@ class _ReviewController(NSObject):
             # Bezeled, not borderless: bare emoji read as decoration and
             # users doubted the click registered (2026-07-03/04 feedback,
             # twice now — the outline is what says "button").
-            btn = NSButton.alloc().initWithFrame_(NSMakeRect(x, H - 42, 44, 30))
+            btn = NSButton.alloc().initWithFrame_(NSMakeRect(x, H - 42, 38, 30))
             btn.setTitle_(emoji)
             btn.setBezelStyle_(NSBezelStyleRounded)
-            # 13pt = the size Reject's title renders at; anything bigger
-            # overflows the rounded bezel's ~22px content lane (16pt did).
-            btn.setFont_(NSFont.systemFontOfSize_(13))
+            # 16pt fits the rounded bezel's ~22px content lane for these
+            # text-presentation glyphs (the old color emoji clipped at 16pt,
+            # which is why this used to be 13pt).
+            btn.setFont_(NSFont.systemFontOfSize_(16))
             btn.setTag_(i + 1)  # tag = approval level
             btn.setTarget_(self)
             btn.setAction_("approve:")
@@ -898,7 +899,7 @@ class _ReviewController(NSObject):
             except Exception:
                 pass
             content.addSubview_(btn)
-            x += 48
+            x += 42
 
         reject = NSButton.alloc().initWithFrame_(NSMakeRect(W - M - 66, H - 42, 66, 30))
         reject.setTitle_("Reject")

package/mcp/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@m13v/s4l-mcp",
-  "version": "1.7.2-rc.10",
+  "version": "1.7.2-rc.14",
   "private": true,
   "description": "Desktop MCP client for social-autoposter (X/Twitter rail): manual draft/review/approve loop, autopilot control, and stats. Thin wrapper over the existing pipeline scripts.",
   "license": "MIT",

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@m13v/s4l",
-  "version": "1.7.2-rc.10",
+  "version": "1.7.2-rc.14",
   "description": "Automated social posting pipeline for Reddit, X/Twitter, LinkedIn, and Moltbook. Install as a Claude Code agent skill.",
   "bin": {
     "social-autoposter": "bin/cli.js",

package/scripts/_process_li_notifs.py

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+import json, re, urllib.parse
+
+NOTIFS = "/tmp/li_notifs.json"
+CID = "/Users/matthewdi/.claude/projects/-/f0a4ef0d-11f2-4618-85e2-bf62ad39cea2/tool-results/brzcccx3h.txt"
+PAIRS = "/Users/matthewdi/.claude/projects/-/f0a4ef0d-11f2-4618-85e2-bf62ad39cea2/tool-results/bu0y0bphg.txt"
+POSTS = "/Users/matthewdi/.claude/projects/-/f0a4ef0d-11f2-4618-85e2-bf62ad39cea2/tool-results/bnb5ginhc.txt"
+
+def load_lines(p):
+    out=[]
+    for ln in open(p, encoding="utf-8", errors="replace"):
+        ln=ln.rstrip("\n")
+        # skip persisted-output wrapper lines
+        if not ln or ln.startswith("<") or ln.startswith("Output too large") or ln.startswith("Preview") or ln.startswith("..."):
+            continue
+        out.append(ln)
+    return out
+
+comment_ids = set(load_lines(CID))
+pairs = set(load_lines(PAIRS))
+posts = load_lines(POSTS)
+
+# activity number -> post id
+post_by_act = {}
+for ln in posts:
+    if "|" not in ln: continue
+    pid, url = ln.split("|",1)
+    for m in re.findall(r"urn:li:(?:activity|share|ugcPost):(\d+)", url):
+        post_by_act[m]=pid
+
+# config projects search_topics
+cfg = json.load(open("/Users/matthewdi/social-autoposter/config.json"))
+projtopics = []
+for pr in cfg.get("projects",[]):
+    projtopics.append((pr["name"], [t.lower() for t in pr.get("search_topics",[])]))
+
+EXCLUDED = {"louis030195","louis3195"}
+OWN = {"matthew diakonov","m13v"}
+
+def match_project(snippet):
+    s = snippet.lower()
+    best=None; bestscore=0
+    for name, topics in projtopics:
+        score=0
+        for t in topics:
+            if t and t in s:
+                score+=1
+        if score>bestscore:
+            bestscore=score; best=name
+    return best or "S4L"
+
+data = json.load(open(NOTIFS))
+decisions=[]
+for d in data:
+    href = d["href"]
+    dec = urllib.parse.unquote(href)
+    m = re.search(r"urn:li:activity:(\d+)", dec)
+    activity_id = m.group(1) if m else None
+    comment_urn = d["comment_urn"]
+    author = d["author"]
+    a_low = author.lower().strip()
+    rec = dict(author=author, activity_id=activity_id, comment_urn=comment_urn,
+               snippet=d["snippet"], href=href, type=d["type"])
+    if not comment_urn or not activity_id:
+        rec["decision"]="no_comment_urn"; decisions.append(rec); continue
+    if a_low in OWN:
+        rec["decision"]="own_account"; decisions.append(rec); continue
+    if a_low in EXCLUDED or any(x in a_low for x in EXCLUDED):
+        rec["decision"]="excluded_author"; decisions.append(rec); continue
+    if comment_urn in comment_ids:
+        rec["decision"]="already_tracked"; decisions.append(rec); continue
+    our_url = "https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:%s/" % activity_id
+    apk = author + "|||" + our_url
+    if apk in pairs:
+        rec["decision"]="author_already_engaged"; decisions.append(rec); continue
+    # match post
+    pid = post_by_act.get(activity_id)
+    rec["post_id"]=pid
+    rec["project"]=match_project(d["snippet"])
+    rec["decision"]="INSERT"
+    decisions.append(rec)
+
+json.dump(decisions, open("/tmp/li_decisions.json","w"))
+# summary
+from collections import Counter
+c=Counter(r["decision"] for r in decisions)
+print("TOTAL", len(decisions))
+for k,v in c.items(): print(k,v)
+print("---INSERTS---")
+for i,r in enumerate(decisions):
+    if r["decision"]=="INSERT":
+        print(i, r["author"], "| act", r["activity_id"], "| post", r.get("post_id"), "| proj", r["project"])

package/scripts/feedback_digest.py

@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ CURRENT content_guardrails.do_not: {json.dumps(guard_do_not)}
 NEW REVIEW EVENTS since the last digest ({len(rejected)} rejected, {len(no_reason)} of the rejects without a stated reason, {len(approved)} approved, {len(loved)} of the approvals loved):
 {ev_lines}{overall_block}
 
-Categories: wrong_author = the thread's author/audience was a bad fit; off_topic = the thread itself was a bad fit; bad_draft = thread was fine but the written reply was off; other = see the note. "no_reason_given" means the user rejected without picking a category or typing a note: the rejection itself is real, but WHY is your inference from the author/thread/draft context alone, so treat it as weak evidence. It can corroborate a pattern that reasoned events already show, but a no_reason_given reject never justifies a new entry or an author block on its own, and 2+ of them agreeing still only justify an entry when the shared pattern in their context is unmistakable. "edited_before_approving" with an ORIGINAL/REWROTE pair means the user hand-corrected our draft before posting: the rewrite is a direct statement of the voice they want. Diff the pair; when 2+ edits show the same correction (a phrase type removed, a structure replaced, tone shifted, length cut), distill that recurring pattern into draft_style_notes. Ignore edit content that is lead-specific or cosmetic (typo fixes, one-off facts); learn only what generalizes. "user_checked=profile_click" means the user opened the author's profile before deciding (a strong author-quality signal even without a note). "[approved+loved]" means the user picked a stronger emoji in the approve row ("this was a really good one"; approve_level_N in interactions carries the strength, 3 = best of the best): strong positive evidence for audience_prefer and thread selection, worth roughly two plain approvals.
+Categories: wrong_author = the thread's author/audience was a bad fit; off_topic = the thread itself was a bad fit; bad_draft = thread was fine but the written reply was off; other = see the note. "no_reason_given" means the user rejected without picking a category or typing a note: the rejection itself is real, but WHY is your inference from the author/thread/draft context alone, so treat it as weak evidence. It can corroborate a pattern that reasoned events already show, but a no_reason_given reject never justifies a new entry or an author block on its own, and 2+ of them agreeing still only justify an entry when the shared pattern in their context is unmistakable. "edited_before_approving" with an ORIGINAL/REWROTE pair means the user hand-corrected our draft before posting: the rewrite is a direct statement of the voice they want. Diff the pair; when 2+ edits show the same correction (a phrase type removed, a structure replaced, tone shifted, length cut), distill that recurring pattern into draft_style_notes. Ignore edit content that is lead-specific or cosmetic (typo fixes, one-off facts); learn only what generalizes. "user_checked=profile_click" means the user opened the author's profile before deciding (a strong author-quality signal even without a note). "[approved+loved]" means the user picked the heart in the approve row ("this was a really good one"; approve_level_N in interactions carries the strength, 2 = best of the best): strong positive evidence for audience_prefer and thread selection, worth roughly two plain approvals.
 
 You can also block SPECIFIC authors via the plan's block_authors list. A block is a permanent hard exclusion of that one handle from all future thread selection, so it is YOUR judgment call, never automatic. Block when the evidence is strong: a wrong_author reject IS a direct human statement about that author (especially with profile_click), and the author context (author_followers, their post, found_via_topic) or the user's note confirms the account itself was the problem rather than the topic. Do NOT block when the reject looks topic-driven (off_topic/bad_draft on a reasonable account) or when you are unsure; the generalizable TYPE entry in audience_avoid is the softer tool for that.