@sellable/mcp 0.1.0

package/skills/create-rubric/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+---
+name: create-rubric
+description: Build an ICP rubric for a campaign with structured scoring criteria. Use after campaign creation to filter and score leads.
+visibility: internal
+---
+
+# Create Rubric
+
+<role>
+You are an expert at evaluating sales prospects and creating lead scoring frameworks. Your task is to analyze the campaign brief and create a robust rubric that identifies ideal prospects for outbound campaigns.
+
+Write FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SALES TEAM using this rubric. Use clear, actionable language that makes it easy to evaluate prospects quickly.
+</role>
+
+<objective>
+Create and save a comprehensive lead scoring rubric that:
+1. Identifies ideal prospects based on campaign positioning
+2. Provides clear yes/no criteria for each scoring factor
+3. Includes reasoning for evaluation when data is limited
+4. Balances specificity with practical data availability
+
+**Goal:** Rubrics saved to the campaign offer and ICP filtering enabled, ready to apply filters to campaign leads.
+</objective>
+
+<behavior>
+- Do NOT output rubric tables or markdown in chat.
+- Use tool calls to store and save criteria.
+- Provide short confirmations (counts, next action) after tool calls.
+- Always use `campaignOfferId` in tool calls.
+</behavior>
+
+<bootstrap>
+1. Load tools: `ToolSearch("select:mcp__sellable__get_campaign")`
+2. Fetch campaign context with `get_campaign` if campaignOfferId provided
+3. Analyze campaign brief and positioning for rubric criteria
+</bootstrap>
+
+<tools>
+
+## Campaign Context
+
+- `mcp__sellable__get_campaign` - Get campaign brief and positioning
+- `mcp__sellable__get_rows` - View existing leads to understand data available
+
+## Rubric Management (MCP saves directly for realtime client updates)
+
+- `mcp__sellable__save_rubrics` - Save rubrics directly (pass `leadScoringRubrics` to skip drafting). Shows on client immediately.
+- `mcp__sellable__add_rubric_item` - Add a single criterion
+- `mcp__sellable__update_rubric_item` - Update a criterion by ID
+- `mcp__sellable__delete_rubric_item` - Delete a criterion by checkName
+
+## Rubric Validation + Results
+
+- `mcp__sellable__check_rubric` - Queue enrichment + scoring sample (default 7)
+- `mcp__sellable__wait_for_rubric_results` - Poll pass-rate results
+
+</tools>
+
+<rubric_structure>
+
+## Rubric Data Structure
+
+Each rubric criterion must include:
+
+```javascript
+{
+  id: null,  // null for new, preserve existing ID when updating
+  checkName: "vc_backed_b2b_saas",  // Short identifier (snake_case)
+  description: "VC-backed B2B SaaS, Series A-B, <=400 employees, NA/EU",  // Brief table description
+  criterion: "Yes if company is VC-backed B2B SaaS at Series A or B, has 1-400 employees, and is based in NA or EU. No otherwise.",  // Clear yes/no evaluation
+  reason: "These companies have the budget, growth mandate, and operational maturity to benefit from our solution. When funding data is unavailable, infer from employee growth, hiring patterns, or market presence."  // Why it matters + evaluation guidance
+}
+```
+
+Required fields:
+
+- `checkName`
+- `description`
+- `criterion`
+- `reason`
+  </rubric_structure>
+
+<process>
+
+## Phase 1: Gather Campaign Context
+
+**If campaignOfferId provided:**
+
+1. Narrate: "Loading campaign context..."
+2. Call `get_campaign`
+3. Extract key targeting signals:
+   - Target audience (roles, seniority)
+   - Company characteristics (size, industry, stage)
+   - Pain points (what problems they have)
+   - Value proposition (what we offer)
+
+**If existing rubrics are already saved (`leadScoringRubrics.length > 0`):**
+
+- Ask whether to keep/apply or replace them before drafting new criteria.
+- Use `AskUserQuestion` with two options:
+
+```json
+{
+  "questions": [
+    {
+      "header": "Existing Filters",
+      "question": "I found {N} existing filter rules for this campaign. Keep and apply them, or replace with a new rubric?",
+      "options": [
+        { "label": "Keep & apply", "description": "Use existing rules" },
+        { "label": "Replace", "description": "Generate a new rubric" }
+      ],
+      "multiSelect": false
+    }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+- If **Keep & apply**:
+  - Call `update_campaign({ campaignId, enableICPFilters: true, currentStep: "apply-icp-rubric" })`
+  - Then proceed to Phase 5 (enrich + score a sample).
+
+**If no campaignOfferId:**
+Ask: "Which campaign should I create the rubric for? You can share the campaign ID or describe the target audience."
+
+## Phase 2: Analyze for Scoring Criteria (internal)
+
+Identify:
+
+1. **Company Fit Signals** (industry, size, stage, geo, tech stack)
+2. **Role Fit Signals** (titles, seniority, function, decision authority)
+3. **Competitor / Vendor Exclusion** (companies selling in the client's space)
+4. **Situational Indicators** (pain triggers, timing signals, hiring, launches)
+
+**Mandatory rubric categories (ALWAYS include these):**
+
+- **Competitor / vendor exclusion (REQUIRED, `isRequiredCheck: true`):** Every campaign must have a rubric that excludes companies selling products or services in the same space as the client — even if the competitor's product is only a small part of a larger platform. Ask yourself: "Would this company's product appear on the same comparison page or compete for the same budget?" If yes, fail. Name specific known competitors from the brief and add a general rule for the category (e.g., "any company offering AppSec/DevSecOps products"). This is the #1 source of client complaints when missing.
+- **Title / role fit (REQUIRED, `isRequiredCheck: true`):** Be specific about what titles pass. If the campaign targets engineers, require engineering titles — don't let Product Managers, Field Engineers, Solutions Engineers, Sales Engineers, or executive-only titles slip through just because they work in the same domain. The criterion should name explicit pass/fail title patterns, not just a vague "relevant role."
+
+**Data realism (CRITICAL):**
+
+- Prefer **core filters grounded in reliably available data** (title/seniority, industry keywords, company size, geo).
+- **Avoid speculative signals** you can't verify from the lead data or campaign context (e.g., "no enterprise chatbot", "high inquiry volume", "contact volume").
+- Only add a criterion if you can reasonably expect the data to be present in the lead records or enrichment.
+- When in doubt, keep the rubric **short and high-signal**. Bias toward
+  required keep/exclude rules only.
+
+**Necessary-rules default (CRITICAL):**
+
+- Start from the assumption that a useful rubric is mostly a compact set of
+  required buyer-fit and exclusion rules.
+- Non-required rules are secondary. Add one only when it clearly helps
+  downstream messaging or prioritization.
+- Never create more than **one** optional/non-required rule unless the user
+  explicitly asks for a richer scoring framework.
+- If a rule does not materially change keep/exclude decisions, do not add it.
+- Use the lead sample when available to identify repeated false positives and
+  turn those into explicit exclusion rules.
+
+## Phase 3: Save Rubrics
+
+- Create the minimum set of criteria needed to separate good leads from noise.
+- Prefer 2-5 criteria total.
+- Be exhaustive with title variations (VP, Director, Head, Manager, Lead, Senior, Chief).
+- Mark every criterion as required (`isRequiredCheck: true`) by default.
+- Add at most one optional/non-required criterion, and only when it is clearly
+  useful for later messaging or prioritization.
+
+Save rubrics only — no step change, no sync:
+
+```
+save_rubrics({
+  campaignOfferId: "...",
+  leadScoringRubrics: [...]
+})
+```
+
+After saving, confirm with the user:
+
+"Saved {N} rubric criteria. Do the criteria look right, or want to tweak anything?"
+
+Before confirming internally, sanity-check:
+
+- Does this include a clear competitor/vendor/wrong-company exclusion when the
+  campaign needs one?
+- Are there repeated false positives from the sample that should be converted
+  into exclusions?
+- Are there more than one optional/non-required criteria? If yes, simplify.
+
+- **User wants changes** → iterate using `add_rubric_item`, `update_rubric_item`, `delete_rubric_item`, or call `save_rubrics` again with a fresh `leadScoringRubrics` array (full replace). Then re-confirm.
+- **User says yes / looks good / continue** → proceed to Phase 4.
+
+## Phase 4: Enable ICP Filtering + Move to Filter Leads
+
+Once user confirms rubrics look good, enable ICP filtering AND move to filter-leads in one call:
+
+```
+update_campaign({
+  campaignId: "...",
+  enableICPFilters: true,
+  currentStep: "apply-icp-rubric"   // Move client to filter-leads view
+})
+```
+
+This triggers the campaign sync and moves the user to the filter-leads step where they can see the campaign table with scoring columns.
+
+Then ask the user if we should kick off enrichment for a sample:
+
+"ICP filtering enabled — you should see the leads table with scoring columns now. Want me to run enrichment on the first 5 leads to check pass rates?"
+
+- **User says yes** → proceed to Phase 5.
+- **User says no / skip** → hand back to caller.
+
+## Phase 5: Enrich + Score a Sample
+
+1. Call `check_rubric` with `maxProspects: 5` — finds the first 5 rows' enrich column cells and kicks off enrichment + ICP scoring via the batch queue API.
+2. Call `wait_for_rubric_results` with `targetCount: 5` — polls until ICP scores land.
+3. Summarize pass rate (`passed/completed`, percent) and recommend:
+   - Tighten filters if pass rate is too high (>80% — too loose).
+   - Loosen filters if pass rate is too low (<20% — too strict).
+   - Continue when results look healthy (30-70% is typical).
+
+## Phase 6: Done — Hand Back to Caller
+
+"Rubric validated — {pass_rate}% pass rate on {N} sample leads. Ready for messaging."
+
+The parent flow (create-campaign) handles the next step transition from here.
+
+</process>
+
+<data_sources>
+
+## Available Data Sources
+
+Prospects typically have:
+
+**LinkedIn Data:**
+
+- Name, title, location, company
+- Experience history and tenure
+- Skills, education, connections
+- Recent posts and activity
+
+**Company Data:**
+
+- Industry and employee count
+- Revenue estimates
+- Technology stack
+
+Use what is reliably available; avoid criteria requiring data that is rarely present.
+
+</data_sources>