@sellable/mcp 0.1.19 → 0.1.21

package/README.md

@@ -83,14 +83,14 @@ The token is provided when you generate it. Use `list_workspaces` +
 For customer/package installs, use the public installer:
 
 ```bash
-npx -y @sellable/install@0.1.19 --host codex --token skt_live_your_token_here --workspace-id your_workspace_id
+npx -y @sellable/install@0.1.21 --host codex --token skt_live_your_token_here --workspace-id your_workspace_id
 ```
 
 If you already have `~/.sellable/config.json`, rerun/verify without rewriting
 auth:
 
 ```bash
-npx -y @sellable/install@0.1.19 --host codex
+npx -y @sellable/install@0.1.21 --host codex
 sellable --verify-only --host codex
 ```
 

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.19",
+  "version": "0.1.21",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/SKILL.md

@@ -120,6 +120,12 @@ Validated draft directory:
   or safe launch. Do not say "persist", "local draft folder", "artifact",
   "mkdir", "campaign thesis", or "same approved campaign thesis" in
   customer-facing progress copy.
+- Every approval gate must include artifact access after the readable inline
+  content. Show a short `Open artifacts:` line with clickable markdown links
+  using absolute paths when the host supports them, plus the plain path for CLI
+  users. Do this for brief approval, lead-source approval/review, message review,
+  and final approval packet. Do not use the links as a substitute for rendering
+  the content inline; links are for deeper inspection.
 - Do not treat the active Sellable workspace as the campaign subject. The
   workspace only tells you where the campaign will be saved. Before buyer, CTA,
   proof, or source questions, identify two things:
@@ -319,6 +325,8 @@ me`, `I’ll paste a different sender profile`, and `Other / custom`.
   user-facing choice should be approve/revise language, not "looks good".
   Approval options should refer to what the user just read, e.g. `Approve this
 brief`, `Revise target`, `Revise offer/proof`, and `Other / custom`.
+  Include `Open artifacts:` links to `brief-v1.md` and `brief.md` before the
+  approval question.
 
 - After the brief is approved or auto-confirmed, show the next progress line:
   `Cool. Now I'm going to find people who are both a good fit and likely to
@@ -522,8 +530,8 @@ Required behavior:
   such as `73% match` without the numerator, denominator, and sample basis, e.g.
   `8 of 11 sampled engagers fit the ICP (73%)`. If the sample is small, say it is
   directional. If an estimate depends on assumptions, show the math: `5 selected
-  posts x ~40-80 reachable engagers/post x 25-40% expected fit = ~50-160 likely
-  usable leads`.
+posts x ~40-80 reachable engagers/post x 25-40% expected fit = ~50-160 likely
+usable leads`.
 - source progress updates should expose the confidence-building numbers as soon
   as they exist: keyword lanes searched, timeframe used, post results by lane,
   finalist posts reviewed, engagers fetched, sampled engagers, sampled fits,
@@ -578,7 +586,7 @@ Required behavior:
   posts reviewed, number of selected posts, total engagers fetched, deduped
   sampled people count, sampled fit count, and the estimated likely usable people
   range. Explicitly distinguish `posts found`, `engagers sampled`, and `usable
-  people estimated`.
+people estimated`.
 - source decision: best path, why it won, pros, cons/tradeoffs, and discarded
   source paths with the reason each lost
 - repeated false-positive patterns
@@ -637,6 +645,8 @@ visible response must include `## Source Decision`, `## Evidence Snapshot`,
 `## Expected LinkedIn Funnel`, `## Pros`, `## Tradeoffs`, and `## Discarded
 Paths`. For Signals-first campaigns it must also include `## Selected Signal
 Posts` and `## Sample Leads`.
+Include `Open artifacts:` links to `lead-review.md` and `lead-sample.json`
+before moving to filter/message drafting or asking for any source revision.
 
 For supplied profile CSVs and existing lead lists, `lead-review.md` must not
 describe a generic TAM estimate or pretend the rows came from Sales Nav/Prospeo
@@ -851,22 +861,35 @@ Orchestration requirements:
   with `Status: message-review` as the first visible line. Do not put a
   markdown heading, preface, or summary before that status line. This is a
   customer checkpoint, not an audit report: show the approved campaign message
-  template first, then show rendered examples that prove the tokens fill well
-  and can be omitted cleanly when row data is weak. Keep the detailed
+  template first, then show one filled sample prospect version immediately after
+  it so the user can judge whether the tokens are being used correctly. Then
+  show rendered examples that prove the tokens fill well and can be omitted
+  cleanly when row data is weak. Keep the detailed
   gold-standard/rule audit inside `message-validation.md`, not in the
   user-facing review. The review must use this exact label shape so the gate can
-  be parsed: `Subject: ...`, `Message: ...`, `Rendered examples: ...`,
-  `Good token fill: ...`, `Good omit: ...`, `Token notes: ...`,
-  `My take: ...`, `Suggested adjustment: ...`,
+  be parsed: `Subject: ...`, `Tokenized template: ...`, `Sample prospect fill:
+  ...`, `Rendered examples: ...`, `Good token fill: ...`, `Good omit: ...`,
+  `Token notes: ...`, `My take: ...`, `Suggested adjustment: ...`,
   `Question: approve-message or revise-messaging?`, `Recommendation:
 approve-message|revise-messaging`.
+- Never ask the message approval question until the full message review is
+  visible in the chat. A summary like `Message review is ready` or `the draft
+avoids a generic pitch` is not enough. The user must see the actual subject,
+  the actual tokenized message template, one filled sample prospect version, at
+  least one good filled example, one good omit example, token notes, your take,
+  and the suggested adjustment before any `approve-message` /
+  `revise-messaging` question appears. If you catch yourself wanting to offer
+  `show me message` as a choice, stop: render the message review first, then ask
+  only `approve-message` or `revise-messaging`.
+  Include `Open artifacts:` links to `message-review.md` and
+  `message-validation.md` before the approval question.
 - `My take:` and `Suggested adjustment:` are mandatory customer-facing decision
   fields, not optional summary text. They must appear after `Token notes:` and
   before the question in every rendered message review. They must each be
   non-empty, specific to the current message, and useful for one last manual
   feedback pass. Never render a message review that jumps straight from token
   notes to `Question:` or `Recommendation:`.
-- `Message:` in `message-review.md` must be a tokenized template with supported
+- `Tokenized template:` in `message-review.md` must be a tokenized template with supported
   enriched-row tokens such as `{{first_name}}`, `{{company}}`,
   `{{workflow_context}}`, `{{headline}}`, `{{source_post_topic}}`, or
   `{{row_proof_note}}`. It must not be a one-row-only raw sample. It must
@@ -874,12 +897,20 @@ approve-message|revise-messaging`.
   enriched rows can actually fill or safely omit. If you cannot produce a
   tokenized template from supported enriched-row fields, stop with
   `Recommendation: revise-messaging`.
+- `Sample prospect fill:` must render the same template for one named sample
+  prospect from `lead-sample.json` or the selected row used in
+  `message-validation.md`. It must show the complete subject and body the
+  prospect would receive, plus a one-line `Token fill basis:` naming which row
+  fields filled each token. This is the user-facing proof that the template
+  works. Do not ask for approval if the user cannot compare the template to a
+  concrete filled message.
 - `{{profile_signal}}` is never a supported customer-facing token. It is an
-  internal enrichment label and must not appear in `Subject:`, `Message:`,
-  rendered examples, `Token notes:`, `message-validation.md` selected copy, or
-  `approval-packet.md`. If a profile-derived signal matters, translate it into
-  a buyer-readable derived token with a clear fill rule, such as
-  `{{workflow_context}}` or `{{row_proof_note}}`; otherwise omit the line.
+  internal enrichment label and must not appear in `Subject:`, `Tokenized
+  template:`, `Sample prospect fill:`, rendered examples, `Token notes:`,
+  `message-validation.md` selected copy, or `approval-packet.md`. If a
+  profile-derived signal matters, translate it into a buyer-readable derived
+  token with a clear fill rule, such as `{{workflow_context}}` or
+  `{{row_proof_note}}`; otherwise omit the line.
 - `Rendered examples:` must include at least one `Good token fill:` rendered
   message where the row has a clean signal and one `Good omit:` rendered message
   where an optional token line is omitted instead of forced. Each example must
@@ -916,12 +947,12 @@ approve-message|revise-messaging`.
   `thought this was relevant enough`, `seemed close
 enough`, `{{profile_signal}}`, `profile signal`, `is why I thought this might
   be relevant`, `Austin's`, a sender/founder name in the subject, a one-row raw
-  sample under `Message:`, rendered examples without full copy, a
+  sample under `Tokenized template:`, rendered examples without full copy, a
   mail-merge-sounding tokenized opener, missing or empty `My take:`, missing or
   empty `Suggested adjustment:`, `My take:` that only says `looks good`,
   `strong`, or `approved`, `Suggested adjustment:` that only says `none`, or no
-  literal `{{...}}` token in `Message:`, revise the message before showing it.
-  Do not output
+  literal `{{...}}` token in `Tokenized template:`, revise the message before
+  showing it. Do not output
   `Recommendation: approve-message` when any hard-fail preflight item is
   present.
 - `My take` must be 1-3 short bullets or sentences, focused on what a founder
@@ -981,6 +1012,9 @@ proof:`, `p.s. useful proof:`, `p.s. proof:`, or `p.s. social proof:`.
   summarize the customer checkpoint from `message-review.md` and preserve the
   same literal `My take:`, `Suggested adjustment:`, and `Recommendation:`
   labels.
+  Include `Open artifacts:` links to `approval-packet.md`,
+  `message-review.md`, `lead-review.md`, and `brief.md` before the commit-gate
+  question.
 - if `message-validation.md` contains an extractable `Selected Winner`, use
   that exact winner as the `## Approved Message Template` in
   `approval-packet.md` and in the campaign brief passed to `create_campaign`.
@@ -1063,7 +1097,9 @@ Do not:
 
 - `Status: message-review`
 - `Subject:` using the approved tokenized A + B + C subject shape
-- `Message:` followed by the tokenized approved message template
+- `Tokenized template:` followed by the tokenized approved message template
+- `Sample prospect fill:` with one concrete sample prospect's complete rendered
+  subject + body and a `Token fill basis:` line
 - `Rendered examples:`
 - `Good token fill:` with a complete concrete rendered subject + body
 - `Good omit:` with a complete concrete rendered subject + body where optional
@@ -1197,11 +1233,13 @@ Anchor validation (block `approve` when empty):
   `Pass Rate`, `Recommendation`, and `Implementation Details`
 - `message-validation.md` has `Status: confirmed`, `Mode: DRY MODE (no DB
 mutation)`, a `Selected Winner`, and a non-empty `Token Adherence Table`
-- `message-review.md` has `Status: message-review`, `Subject:`, `Message:`
-  with at least one literal `{{...}}` token, `Rendered examples:`,
-  `Good token fill:` with a complete rendered subject + body, `Good omit:` with
-  a complete rendered subject + body, `Token notes:`, `My take:`, `Suggested
-adjustment:`, `Question: approve-message or revise-messaging?`, and
+- `message-review.md` has `Status: message-review`, `Subject:`,
+  `Tokenized template:` with at least one literal `{{...}}` token,
+  `Sample prospect fill:` with a complete rendered subject + body and
+  `Token fill basis:`, `Rendered examples:`, `Good token fill:` with a complete
+  rendered subject + body, `Good omit:` with a complete rendered subject + body,
+  `Token notes:`, `My take:`, `Suggested adjustment:`, `Question:
+  approve-message or revise-messaging?`, and
   `Recommendation: approve-message`
 - `message-review-decision.md` is exactly `approve-message`
 

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/SOUL.md

@@ -59,6 +59,17 @@ Approvals only feel safe when the user can see what they are approving. Before
 any approve/revise question, show the relevant decision in plain language. For a
 brief approval, render the brief itself, not just a direction summary.
 
+Every approval should also give the user a way to inspect the source artifact.
+After the readable inline content, include an `Open artifacts:` line with links
+or plain paths to the files behind the decision. The artifact links are a backup
+for inspection, not a replacement for showing the content in chat.
+
+This applies especially to message approvals. Never ask someone to approve a
+message they cannot see. Show the subject, tokenized template, a filled sample
+prospect version, omit example, token notes, your take, and suggested adjustment
+first. The user should be able to compare "here is the template" against "here
+is what one real prospect would receive" before approving.
+
 ## Progress Updates
 
 Every customer-facing update should answer one of these:

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/core/flow.v2.json

@@ -227,6 +227,8 @@
             "then I will find good-fit leads"
           ],
           "minimumVisibleBriefDetail": "full_readable_brief_before_question",
+          "requiredArtifactLinks": ["brief-v1.md", "brief.md"],
+          "artifactLinkTiming": "before_approval_question",
           "avoidQuestionWhenOnlyUsefulAnswerIs": "looks good"
         },
         {
@@ -397,6 +399,8 @@
             "confidence note"
           ],
           "forbidPercentOnlyFitRates": true,
+          "requiredArtifactLinks": ["lead-review.md", "lead-sample.json"],
+          "artifactLinkTiming": "before_next_step_or_revision_question",
           "doNotCompressToSummaryOnly": true,
           "doNotRenderArtifactLinksOnly": true
         },
@@ -599,7 +603,8 @@
           "requiredInlineMarker": "Status: message-review",
           "panels": [
             "subject",
-            "message",
+            "tokenized template",
+            "sample prospect fill",
             "rendered examples",
             "token notes",
             "my take",
@@ -607,9 +612,17 @@
             "question",
             "recommendation"
           ],
+          "mustRenderInlineBeforeQuestion": true,
+          "minimumVisibleMessageDetail": "full_message_review_before_question",
+          "requiredArtifactLinks": [
+            "message-review.md",
+            "message-validation.md"
+          ],
+          "artifactLinkTiming": "before_approval_question",
           "requiredLabels": [
             "Subject:",
-            "Message:",
+            "Tokenized template:",
+            "Sample prospect fill:",
             "Rendered examples:",
             "Good token fill:",
             "Good omit:",
@@ -629,6 +642,7 @@
             "no generic signal tokens",
             "no bracketed or deferred row instructions",
             "tokenized template with rendered examples",
+            "tokenized template plus filled sample prospect",
             "complete rendered subject plus body examples",
             "message-review hard-fail preflight",
             "A + B + C subject quality",
@@ -644,6 +658,21 @@
         {
           "action": "ask_message_review_choice",
           "choices": ["approve-message", "revise-messaging"],
+          "questionPrerequisiteVisibleLabels": [
+            "Status: message-review",
+            "Subject:",
+            "Tokenized template:",
+            "Sample prospect fill:",
+            "Rendered examples:",
+            "Good token fill:",
+            "Good omit:",
+            "Token notes:",
+            "My take:",
+            "Suggested adjustment:",
+            "Recommendation:"
+          ],
+          "forbiddenWhenMissingVisibleMessage": true,
+          "doNotOfferShowMessageChoice": true,
           "stopAfterQuestion": true
         },
         {
@@ -726,6 +755,13 @@
             "messages",
             "risks and next action"
           ],
+          "requiredArtifactLinks": [
+            "approval-packet.md",
+            "message-review.md",
+            "lead-review.md",
+            "brief.md"
+          ],
+          "artifactLinkTiming": "before_commit_gate_question",
           "userFacing": true,
           "doNotUseWords": ["anchor", "validation anchor", "lane"]
         },
@@ -821,7 +857,14 @@
             "lead sample",
             "lead filter",
             "message validation"
-          ]
+          ],
+          "requiredArtifactLinks": [
+            "approval-packet.md",
+            "message-review.md",
+            "lead-review.md",
+            "brief.md"
+          ],
+          "artifactLinkTiming": "same_turn_before_commit_question"
         },
         {
           "action": "ask_commit_choice",