@sellable/mcp 0.1.212 → 0.1.213

package/skills/generate-messages/SKILL.md

@@ -143,15 +143,15 @@ hard failure and revise the output before returning it.
 
 Dry mode validates message quality before campaign mint.
 
-Read the campaign-specific dry-mode inputs from the caller's dry-run workspace:
-
-- `.sellable/configs/core/about-me.md`
-- `.sellable/configs/core/my-company.md`
-- `.sellable/configs/core/context-modes.md`
-- `.sellable/configs/core/proof-ledger.md`
-- `.sellable/configs/core/wins-ledger.md`
-- `.sellable/configs/core/anti-ai-writing-style.md`
-- `.sellable/configs/writing/outbound.md` and legacy `styleguide-core.md` as fallback/source material when present
+Read these campaign inputs:
+
+- `~/.sellable/configs/core/about-me.md`
+- `~/.sellable/configs/core/my-company.md`
+- `~/.sellable/configs/core/context-modes.md`
+- `~/.sellable/configs/core/proof-ledger.md`
+- `~/.sellable/configs/core/wins-ledger.md`
+- `~/.sellable/configs/core/anti-ai-writing-style.md`
+- `~/.sellable/configs/writing/outbound.md` and legacy `styleguide-core.md` as fallback/source material when present
 - `brief.md`
 - `lead-sample.json` from the find-leads step; this is the only allowed sample
   source for dry-mode message generation
@@ -159,29 +159,66 @@ Read the campaign-specific dry-mode inputs from the caller's dry-run workspace:
   prospect setup workstreams in parallel, start the prep/candidate stages and then
   reconcile before final `message-validation.md`.
 
-## Reference Asset Loading
-
-These references are packaged in `@sellable/mcp` and must be loaded through the
-Sellable MCP asset loader in live/customer runs. Continue each asset load with
-the returned `nextOffset` until `hasMore` is false.
-
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign", assetPath: "references/ai-native-tokens.md" })`
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign", assetPath: "references/token-fill-examples.md" })`
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-brief", assetPath: "references/phase75-active-runtime-message-pack.md" })`
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/validation-criteria.md" })`
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/thomas-revision-filters.md" })`
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/gold-standard-message-patterns.md" })`
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/gold-standard-message-examples.md" })`
-- `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/gold-standard-message-validation-example.md" })`
+## Reference Asset Loading (do this before drafting)
+
+Do not draft from this prompt alone. The full `generate-messages` prompt is
+only the contract; the reference assets below are the evidence and examples
+that define the desired output. Before writing angle drafts, you MUST load the
+required pre-draft reference pack below with `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset`.
+This is a hard gate: if the four required pre-draft assets are not loaded,
+return `blocked` / `retry-needed` instead of drafting. Write a short
+`Reference Asset Loading` note naming each loaded asset and whether it was
+required pre-draft, final-pass, dry-mode-only, or token-rules-only. Do not
+bulk-load the conditional references unless their trigger applies or the caller
+explicitly asks for maximum context over speed.
+
+Use `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset` for packaged assets:
+
+| Group | Asset to load | Job |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Always load before drafting | `subskillName: "create-campaign-brief", assetPath: "references/phase75-active-runtime-message-pack.md"` | Active line-level gold pack: real approved examples, short-line rhythm, CTA blocks, lowercase/titlecase cues, and PS restraint. |
+| Always load before drafting | `subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/gold-standard-message-patterns.md"` | Strategy selector: event-led vs signal-led vs job-post-led vs proof-led fallback, proof inventory, candidate set, and Finalizer Pass. |
+| Always load before drafting | `subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/gold-standard-message-examples.md"` | Full archive quality bar: exact motion examples, hard rules, and transfer limits. Use it to choose 1 primary example, not to recolor copy. |
+| Always load before drafting (never optional) | `subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/ai-tells.md"` | Canonical anti-AI checklist: body self-intros, source citations, resume recaps, title-fit assumptions, em dashes, signoffs, weak proof brags, and flattened "worth sending" source bridges. |
+| Load before approval / final pass | `subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/thomas-revision-filters.md"` | Substance filters: earned-right, presumption, vague proof, read-as-1:1, founder-origin coherence, anti-talk-at, and AI-tell filter. |
+| Dry-mode artifact output only | `subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/gold-standard-message-validation-example.md"` | Fully worked example for proof inventory, candidate messages, Finalizer Pass, Selected Winner, findings, and recommendation. |
+| Dry-mode artifact output only | `subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/validation-criteria.md"` | Step-level acceptance criteria and dry-mode message validation expectations. |
+| Reusable token rules only | `subskillName: "create-campaign", assetPath: "references/ai-native-tokens.md"` | Token spec for rich judgment tokens, including required clauses and fallback behavior. |
+| Reusable token rules only | `subskillName: "create-campaign", assetPath: "references/token-fill-examples.md"` | Concrete good/bad token fills, interpolation guardrails, and product-noun substitution traps. |
+
+Example packaged asset calls:
+
+- `get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign", assetPath: "references/ai-native-tokens.md" })`
+- `get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign", assetPath: "references/token-fill-examples.md" })`
+- `get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-brief", assetPath: "references/phase75-active-runtime-message-pack.md" })`
+- `get_subskill_asset({ subskillName: "create-campaign-v2", assetPath: "references/validation-criteria.md" })`
 
 Do not satisfy the list above by searching or reading the local filesystem.
 Path-like names in this section are package asset coordinates for MCP loading.
 
+Default load order:
+
+1. Load the 4 **Always load before drafting** assets. Do not infer their
+   contents from this prompt; actually call `mcp__sellable__get_subskill_asset`
+   for each required asset.
+2. Draft and run the internal Finalizer Pass.
+3. Run the selected winner against `ai-tells.md`. This is never optional. If the
+   AI-tells catalog was not loaded or any `REJECT` tell matches, do not approve,
+   confirm, recommend, or show the template as ready; return `revise-message`.
+4. Load `thomas-revision-filters.md` before approval, `confirmed`, or template
+   recommendation.
+5. Load dry-mode artifact references only when writing `message-validation.md`.
+6. Load token-rule references only when creating reusable templates or Token
+   Fill Rules that need sentence-level personalization.
+
 ### Rich Personalization Contract
 
 The `create-campaign` asset `references/ai-native-tokens.md` is the canonical
 spec for personalization that requires judgment. Load it before
 writing the Token Fill Rules or any reusable template notes.
+When token fill wording is material, use
+`mcp/sellable/skills/create-campaign/references/token-fill-examples.md` as the
+conditional good/bad fill reference.
 
 - Sentence-level personalization must use AI-native bracket tokens in the
   reusable template / token plan, not old-school field substitution. Field
@@ -218,7 +255,7 @@ winner gate**.
 
 ### Retrieval & motion
 
-- treat `phase75-active-runtime-message-pack.md` as the **real line-level
+- treat `gold-standard-runtime-message-pack.md` as the **real line-level
   gold pack** for active clients and proven live message shapes
 - retrieve against the full archived gold-standard library and pick the closest 2-4 examples for consideration
 - use the runtime pack first for concrete formatting cues that the
@@ -348,6 +385,8 @@ artifact.**
    - `saw you on {{recent_signal}}`
    - `saw you around {{recent_signal}}`
    - `saw you engaging with {{recent_signal}}`
+   - `saw you raise your hand for {{signal_topic}}, so figured this was worth sending`
+   - `figured this was worth sending`
 
    Safer shapes:
 
@@ -355,25 +394,49 @@ artifact.**
    - `saw you might be interested in {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant`
    - `saw you in a few conversations around {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant`
    - `saw you in a few conversations about {{signal_topic}}, so may be off, but this seemed relevant`
-   - `may be off, but if {{workflow_signal}} is anywhere near your lane, this might be useful`
-   - `if {{workflow_signal}} is nowhere near your lane, ignore me`
+   - `appreciate you showing some love on my post about {{signal_topic}}` only when the sender/client authored the source post and the row proves a reaction or comment
+   - `thanks for showing support on my {{signal_topic}} post` only when the sender/client authored the source post and the row proves a reaction or comment
+   - `figured this might be relevant if {{channel_context}} is becoming more of a {{workflow_context}} for {{company_context}}` as the bridge after a sender-owned post acknowledgment
+   - `may be off, but if {{workflow_signal}} is relevant to what you're working on, this might be useful`
+   - `if {{workflow_signal}} is not relevant to what you're working on, ignore me`
    - `figured this might matter if {{workflow_signal}} is live at {{company}}`
    - `thought of {{company}} because {{observable_signal}} points at {{problem_context}}`
-   - `saw you raise your hand for {{signal_topic}}, so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending` only when the engagement signal is the actual source
-   - `saw you raise your hand for {{signal_topic}} (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore` only when the engagement signal is the actual source and the sender's voice can carry the cheekier aside
-
-   For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns (commenters, reactors, lead magnet
-   replies, or scraped conversations), it is acceptable to reference the
+   - `found you in a thread about {{signal_topic}}, so may be off, but this seemed relevant`
+   - `saw you raise your hand for {{signal_topic}}, so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending` only when the source was an explicit lead-magnet comment, reply, or opt-in. The parenthetical uncertainty is load-bearing; do not flatten it to `so figured this was worth sending`.
+   - `saw you raise your hand for {{signal_topic}} (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore` only when the source was an explicit lead-magnet comment, reply, or opt-in and the sender's voice can carry the cheekier aside
+
+   For sender-owned LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, it is acceptable to thank
+   the recipient for showing some love/support on the sender's post when the row
+   proves a reaction or comment. Keep it first-person, light, and non-assumptive:
+   `appreciate you showing some love on my post about {{signal_topic}}` is
+   acceptable; do not say `you commented` unless the row proves comment text.
+   Do not let the acknowledgment dead-end. Follow it with a soft post-topic to
+   buyer-context bridge before broad pain or product copy. Prefer:
+   `figured this might be relevant if {{channel_context}} is becoming more of a
+   {{workflow_context}} for {{company_context}}`. Avoid jumping directly from
+   `appreciate you showing some love...` into `a lot of B2B teams...` or `most
+   teams...`; that transition reads stitched together instead of human.
+   Every following line must cash the previous line: post support -> why the
+   topic may matter now -> what the product/problem has to do with that topic.
+   If the product/problem line would read the same after deleting the source
+   acknowledgment and bridge, the connection is fake; rewrite or cut until the
+   line-to-line chain is real.
+   For third-party LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns (commenters, reactors, lead
+   magnet replies, or scraped conversations), it is acceptable to reference the
    conversation when it explains why the note exists. Keep it topic-level, not
    activity-log-level: `saw you in a few conversations around
    {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` is acceptable; `saw you
    commented on {{post_context}}` and `your LinkedIn activity around...` are
-   not.
+   not. Reserve `raise your hand` phrasing for explicit lead-magnet comments,
+   replies, or opt-ins. For ordinary thread discovery, use `saw you in a few
+   conversations around {{signal_topic}}...` or `found you in a thread about
+   {{signal_topic}}...`.
 
    Keep the apologetic nature, but aim it at uncertainty, not surveillance.
    Good: `saw you in a few conversations about outbound, so may be off, but
-   this seemed relevant`, `may be off, but if outbound is anywhere near your
-   lane...`, `if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me`, `hope
+   this seemed relevant`, `may be off, but if outbound is relevant to what
+   you're working on...`, `if this is not relevant to your outbound workflow,
+   ignore me`, `hope
    this is relevant if...`. Bad: `your role at {{company}} looked close...`,
    because it asserts fit from a title and tells the buyer about themselves.
 
@@ -402,7 +465,7 @@ Selected Winner, check it against these gates:
 - **No title-fit assertion:** do not write `your [role] role at [company]
   looked close to this problem`. A title/company can be the private reason you
   selected the row, but the buyer-facing line should stay conditional:
-  `may be off, but if [workflow] is anywhere near your lane...`.
+  `may be off, but if [workflow] is relevant to what you're working on...`.
 - **Swap test:** if another founder/operator could receive the line after only
   changing names and companies, cut it or make the bridge more specific.
 - **Tell-about-themselves test:** if the line merely reports a fact the buyer
@@ -421,7 +484,9 @@ Better:
 - `saw you in a few conversations around international growth, so hope this is relevant.`
 - `saw you in a few conversations around LinkedIn outreach, so hope this is relevant.`
 - `saw you in a few conversations about LinkedIn outreach, so may be off, but this seemed relevant.`
-- `may be off, but if outbound is anywhere near your lane, this might be useful.`
+- `appreciate you showing some love on my post about GTM engineering.`
+- `figured this might be relevant if LinkedIn is becoming more of a GTM channel for {{company_context}}.`
+- `may be off, but if outbound is relevant to what you're working on, this might be useful.`
 - `figured this might matter if you're testing outbound by market.`
 
 ### Angle drafting & finalizer
@@ -664,18 +729,17 @@ help...` or `built for [buyer] to...`. Do not overuse generic solved-state
   solved, or fail to connect to the specific sample row. Prefer a concrete
   row-fit line, a useful artifact, or a buyer-owned current-state observation
   that the recipient can understand without reading the brief.
-- if 3 adjacent mechanics, objection removers, proof points, or CTA
-  options are genuinely parallel and easier to understand as a short
-  `-` bullet stack, use the bullet stack in the winner. Do not reserve
-  this for cleanup. Use bullets when they make the buyer picture the offer
-  faster on mobile. If the product has 3+ plain mechanics such as pricing
-  control, take-rate/economics, malpractice, credentialing, billing, async
-  chat/photo care, or setup speed, prefer a compact bullet stack over
-  separate prose lines unless bullets would make the note feel like a
-  landing page. For data / intelligence products, if the buyer receives 3+
-  concrete output types (e.g. accounts, infrastructure, signals, alerts,
-  records, reports), prefer a short bullet stack over a dense mechanism
-  paragraph.
+- run the parallel action formatting check when the winner has 3 adjacent
+  product actions, outputs, mechanics, or objection removers. If the lines
+  repeat the same subject pattern (`It drafts...` / `It adapts...` /
+  `It helps...`) and each line is a discrete function with no narrative proof
+  clause, prefer a compact `-` bullet stack because it is easier to scan on
+  mobile. Example:
+  `It helps your team:` followed by `- Draft posts...`, `- Adapt them...`,
+  `- Keep showing up...`. Do not force bullets when there are only 1-2
+  actions, one line needs narrative context, the bullets feel like a landing
+  page, or the paragraph version is clearly more human and still scans cleanly.
+  This is a formatting preference, not a message-strategy gate.
 - if one finalist already holds the best of every piece, the winner may
   equal it — name which one and on which axis it won (relevance,
   distinctiveness, proof, coherence, readability)
@@ -744,8 +808,12 @@ Finalizer preference when multiple candidates are otherwise comparable:
   peer-call, compare-notes, or similar identity-call framing. Those CTAs
   are usually weaker than naming the useful thing the buyer gets. Use them
   only when the user explicitly chose that route or the brief makes that
-  peer-call motion the approved offer. Even then, the CTA must name the
-  useful return artifact, preview, teardown, or working session.
+  peer-call motion the approved offer. Even then, preserve the intent, not the
+  phrase. Translate `compare notes` into a concrete CTA that names the topic,
+  workflow, artifact, preview, teardown, or working session. Prefer shapes like
+  `Open to a quick call on how {{company_or_team}} might turn LinkedIn content
+  into pipeline?`. Do not use `Open to compare notes?` or `Open to comparing
+  notes on...`.
 - when the message is selling or introducing a product, make the product
   plain before asking for time, but do not make the opener sound like a
   homepage definition. The reader should be able to answer "what is this?"
@@ -842,6 +910,9 @@ For every line in the selected winner, ask:
 - Would removing this line make the prospect less likely to reply?
 - Does this line make the reply reason clearer, more believable, or easier
   to act on?
+- Does this line follow from the line before it and make the next line feel
+  earned? If two adjacent lines could be swapped, deleted, or joined with
+  `anyway`, the transition is fake. Rewrite the bridge or cut the orphan line.
 - Is this line carrying one of the core jobs: buyer gap / pain, product
   mechanism, concrete output, or CTA?
 - Does this line repeat the same nouns, proof, or mechanism already stated
@@ -955,7 +1026,10 @@ Before drafting, answer these five questions explicitly:
 4. **What proof makes it believable?** Pick the one proof beat that
    answers the buyer's biggest skepticism.
 5. **What is the lowest-friction true next step?** Use only a next step
-   supported by the inputs.
+   supported by the inputs. If the campaign brief explicitly names a CTA
+   motion, preserve it unless it fails truth, clarity, pressure, or safety
+   gates. Improve the CTA by making the object concrete before replacing the
+   motion.
 
 Then choose the exact element pool that angle drafts are allowed to use:
 
@@ -1006,6 +1080,23 @@ both choices are genuinely useful and supported:
 Do not add option B just to mimic a gold standard. If the second option
 is weak, use one CTA.
 
+CTA precedence:
+
+1. If the campaign brief explicitly names a CTA motion, preserve the intent of
+   that motion unless it is unsupported, too high-pressure, unsafe, or too vague
+   to make concrete.
+2. If preserving it, make the object specific in the same line so the buyer
+   knows what they are agreeing to discuss, see, or get.
+3. Replace it only when the brief CTA cannot pass truth, clarity, pressure, or
+   safety gates.
+
+Treat `compare notes` as shorthand for a peer conversation, not as buyer-facing
+copy. The phrase itself is blocked in selected winners, including `Open to
+compare notes?`, `Founder-to-founder compare notes?`, and `Open to comparing
+notes on...`. If the brief selected that intent, translate it into a concrete
+quick-call or working-session CTA, e.g. `Open to a quick call on how
+{{company_or_team}} might turn LinkedIn content into pipeline?`.
+
 For artifact/sample offers, the CTA should usually be one self-contained
 yes/no question that names the concrete thing the buyer gets. Do not split
 the ask into a setup sentence plus a vague question.
@@ -1118,7 +1209,7 @@ a weak body. If the PS sounds like internal reasoning, delete it. Source
 disclaimers such as `p.s. if the source thread was just casual reading, ignore
 me` are BLOCKED; if the source is too weak to stand in the opener/body, omit it.
 A relevance-risk PS is allowed when it names uncertainty without narrating the
-source: `p.s. if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me.`
+source: `p.s. if this is not relevant to your outbound workflow, ignore me.`
 
 ### Raw proof translation test (HARD INVARIANT)
 
@@ -1584,6 +1675,13 @@ teardown`, `record a video`, or similar assets are BLOCKED unless the
   input says that exact next step exists. When unsure, ask for the
   lowest-friction true next step from the brief, such as sending the
   setup link, next step, or a short walkthrough.
+- **Brief CTA obedience:** if the brief explicitly names a CTA motion, the
+  selected winner must either preserve that motion's intent with concrete
+  specificity or explain why truth, clarity, pressure, or safety gates forced a
+  replacement.
+  If the brief uses `compare notes`, do not put that phrase in buyer-facing copy.
+  Translate it into a concrete quick-call or working-session CTA that names the
+  topic or workflow.
 - **CTA clarity:** if the product category is unfamiliar, the CTA must
   make the preview easy to imagine in one short phrase. Avoid vague asks
   like `send the setup link` unless the message has already made that
@@ -1598,8 +1696,11 @@ teardown`, `record a video`, or similar assets are BLOCKED unless the
 artifact / preview] you can [use/check/compare]?`.
 - **CTA specificity:** generic CTAs like `compare notes`, `worth a chat`,
   `open to a call`, or `quick walkthrough` are BLOCKED unless the same
-  line names the specific thing the buyer will compare, see, or get. The
-  next step must be easy to picture.
+  line names the specific thing the buyer will discuss, see, or get. The
+  next step must be easy to picture. `Open to a quick call on how
+  {{company_or_team}} might turn LinkedIn content into pipeline?` passes
+  because the topic is concrete; `Open to compare notes?` fails because the
+  object is missing and the phrase is stale.
 - **Preview CTA wording:** when the CTA is a preview, prefer `open to
 seeing...` over `worth seeing...` unless the chosen gold motion strongly
   supports `worth`. `Open to seeing what this would look like for your own
@@ -1617,7 +1718,7 @@ PO from your inbox?` beats `worth 15 min to compare notes?` because the
   was just casual reading, ignore me`, `only reaching out where the role and
   topic looked close`, or similar sourcing-defense copy.
   Relevance-risk opt-outs are allowed when they do not defend the source:
-  `p.s. if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me.`
+  `p.s. if this is not relevant to your outbound workflow, ignore me.`
 - **YC / backing PS:** a PS that only says `we're YC`, `we're YC W26`,
   `backed by YC`, or similar is BLOCKED as badge-flashing. If YC/backing
   is used, the same sentence must either tie to the buyer segment/outcome
@@ -1688,8 +1789,11 @@ led to it. Acceptable openers:
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, hope this is relevant if [buyer context] is still on your plate.`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant.`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant.`
-- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending.`
-- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, found you in a thread about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending.` Only use this for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins.
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore.` Only use this for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins.
+- Do not use the flattened line `so figured this was worth sending`; either keep
+  `(hopefully)` or use `so hope this is relevant`.
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, pre-[product], we [did the operator-reality
 thing] for [X] years; [one-line consequence].`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, building a thing for [segment] I think you'd
@@ -1900,10 +2004,18 @@ Flow skeleton (apply even when motion varies):
 2. Pain — what's breaking now
 3. **What the product IS** — one crisp sentence naming the product and what category of work it takes on. Example shape: `[Product] is [a category-noun] that [takes a specific class of work off the buyer's plate]`. When the offer is for the buyer's exact role/credential, prefer `lets you...` or `[role]s like you...` over `lets a [role]...` so the buyer does not feel treated like an outsider. Archive-anchored illustrations: Galley's "AI that reads the messiest BEOs and turns them into production-ready plans"; Revvix's "shows what's actually exploitable on your endpoints based on runtime activity".
 4. **What the product DOES** — one action per line. Three actions maximum. Choose the rendering by a **concrete test**, not a feeling:
-   - **Use bullets when the action lines are maximally parallel**: each starts with the same subject (e.g. `It X` / `It Y` / `It Z`), each is a discrete product function, none carries narrative context. This is the default case.
-     - Example shape: `- [Verb] [concrete object from the buyer's workflow].`
-   - **Use one-line paragraphs only when at least one action carries a short narrative clause** that wouldn't fit cleanly in a bullet.
-   - "Conversational motion" is **not** a reason to prefer paragraphs. If the three actions all start with `It X`, they are parallel by definition and should render as bullets.
+   - **Prefer bullets when 3 adjacent action lines are maximally parallel**:
+     each starts with the same subject pattern (e.g. `It drafts...` /
+     `It adapts...` / `It helps...`), each is a discrete product function,
+     and none carries narrative context or proof. Use a setup line plus short
+     `-` bullets, e.g. `It helps your team:` then `- Draft posts...`,
+     `- Adapt them...`, `- Keep showing up...`.
+   - **Use one-line paragraphs** when there are only 1-2 actions, at least one
+     action carries a short narrative clause, bullets would feel like a landing
+     page, or the paragraph version is clearly more human and still scans
+     cleanly.
+   - "Conversational motion" alone is **not** a reason to avoid bullets when
+     all 3 action lines repeat the same `It X` structure.
    - Never stack the three actions into one glued comma-list sentence.
 5. Deployment ease — one short paragraph
 6. CTA — useful next step, binary when the brief supports it
@@ -1912,7 +2024,9 @@ Flow skeleton (apply even when motion varies):
 Rules within the flow:
 
 - **banned**: comma-stacking three actions into one glued sentence (e.g. `"order intake, inventory sync, and reorder timing"` glued together). Split into one action per line.
-- **preferred**: one action per line — as one-line paragraphs or as a bullet list, whichever reads cleaner (see below)
+- **preferred**: one action per line — as one-line paragraphs or as a bullet
+  list, whichever reads cleaner. Use bullets as a mobile readability preference
+  for 3 repeated-subject product actions, not as a blanket hard gate.
 - the "what the product IS" sentence comes **before** the action breakdown — skipping it makes the actions feel disconnected
 - if the brief does not support three distinct actions, drop to two or one. Do not pad.
 - if a proof sentence gets long, split the metric and the explanation into separate one-line paragraphs rather than chaining them together
@@ -1930,10 +2044,11 @@ Rules:
   - `"Saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant."`
   - `"Saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant."`
   - `"Saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."`
+  - `"Found you in a thread about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."`
   - `"Thought of {{company}} because [observable signal] points at [problem]."`
   - `"Figured this might matter if [workflow] is live at {{company}}."`
-  - `"Saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending."`
-  - `"Saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore."`
+  - `"Saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending."` Only for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins.
+  - `"Saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore."` Only for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins.
 - blocked signal use:
   - `"AI-GTM stack is clearly on your mind."`
   - `"You're clearly focused on [area]."`
@@ -1942,7 +2057,9 @@ Rules:
   - `"Saw you on [topic]."`
   - `"Saw you around [topic]."`
   - `"Saw you engaging with [topic]."`
-- signal-led opener shape is a **special case**, not the default. Use it only when the archived motion truly depends on it and the line can stay natural. For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, prefer `"saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant"` when referencing the source makes the outreach feel less random. Avoid activity-log phrasing such as `"you commented on..."`, `"you reacted to..."`, or `"your LinkedIn activity..."` unless the approved motion is the deliberately self-aware raise-hand line.
+  - `"Saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was worth sending."`
+  - `"Figured this was worth sending."`
+- signal-led opener shape is a **special case**, not the default. Use it only when the archived motion truly depends on it and the line can stay natural. For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, prefer `"saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant"` or `"found you in a thread about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant"` when referencing the source makes the outreach feel less random. Avoid activity-log phrasing such as `"you commented on..."`, `"you reacted to..."`, or `"your LinkedIn activity..."` unless the approved motion is the deliberately self-aware raise-hand line for an explicit lead-magnet comment, reply, or opt-in.
 - tokenized engagement-source opener shape is BLOCKED by default:
   `{{first_name}}, saw you {{engagement_context}} on {{post_context}}` reads
   like surveillance unless the filled line is explicitly self-aware and
@@ -1950,11 +2067,12 @@ Rules:
 [topic] is part of the plan`, `saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope
 this is relevant`, `saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this
 is relevant`, `saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off,
-but this seemed relevant`, or one of the self-aware raise-hand shapes when the source is the
-actual reason for the note: `saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured
-this was (hopefully) worth sending` or `saw you raise your hand for [topic]
-(creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to
-ignore`. Do not use the longer `you might not remember the thread...` shape;
+but this seemed relevant`, or `found you in a thread about [topic], so may be
+off, but this seemed relevant`. Use the self-aware raise-hand shapes only when
+the source was an explicit lead-magnet comment, reply, or opt-in: `saw you raise
+your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending` or `saw you
+raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but
+this felt too on the nose to ignore`. Do not use the longer `you might not remember the thread...` shape;
 if the concise source bridge still feels awkward, omit the engagement reference.
 - do not describe the sender/client in third person inside the outbound message.
   `p.s. Saju's angle is...`, `Christian's angle is...`, `[sender]'s approach
@@ -2016,8 +2134,8 @@ A PS must not explain strategy, defend the pitch, narrate the source thread,
 add a second unrelated offer, or say the quiet part out loud. Lines like `this
 is not just a platform idea` and `if the source thread was just casual reading,
 ignore me` are blocked because they sound like internal rationale. A plain
-relevance-risk opt-out such as `if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow,
-ignore me` can stay when it lowers pressure without explaining the scrape.
+relevance-risk opt-out such as `if this is not relevant to your outbound
+workflow, ignore me` can stay when it lowers pressure without explaining the scrape.
 
 The reader does not know who the sender's colleagues are. Dropping a bare first name with no anchor reads like a resume dump that was cut in half.
 
@@ -2388,7 +2506,7 @@ hiring for`
 - Best CTA: Candidate [A|B|C] — reason
 - Best PS / no-PS decision: Candidate [A|B|C] — reason
 - Element edits made by finalizer: ...
-- Bullet-stack decision: used | rejected | not applicable — reason
+- Parallel action formatting: bullets used | paragraphs kept | not applicable — reason
 - Style consistency check: PASS | BLOCKED — reason
 - Assembly note: clean combination or one candidate swept
 
@@ -2397,7 +2515,7 @@ hiring for`
 - Original winner: ...
 - Simplified candidate: ...
 - Simplifier edits: combined lines | split dense line | preserved bullet stack | added bullet stack | none
-- Bullet-stack decision: preserved | added | rejected | not applicable — reason
+- Parallel action formatting: preserved bullets | added bullets | paragraphs kept | not applicable — reason
 - Robustness check: PASS | BLOCKED — reason
 - Decision: applied | rejected
 
@@ -2420,6 +2538,7 @@ hiring for`
 - Jargon / acronym exactness: PASS | BLOCKED — reason
 - Style consistency: PASS | BLOCKED — reason
 - CTA truth: PASS | BLOCKED — reason
+- Brief CTA obedience: PASS | BLOCKED | NOT APPLICABLE — reason
 - CTA clarity: PASS | BLOCKED — reason
 - PS restraint: PASS | BLOCKED | OMITTED — reason
 - YC / backing PS: PASS | BLOCKED | OMITTED — reason
@@ -2540,22 +2659,28 @@ too generic, diagnose the gap precisely:
 
 Then tighten the brief or calibration notes before scaling.
 
-Use the example bank as the primary strategy source even when the brief does
-not already contain winning examples. Do not default to generic REPLY-style
-copy when the motion clearly matches a tighter archived pattern. Strong
-references include:
+Use the v2 runtime gold pack as the primary line-level source even when the
+brief does not already contain winning examples. Do not default to generic
+REPLY-style copy when the motion clearly matches a tighter approved pattern.
+Primary approved references are:
 
-- Sellable.dev
+- sellable.dev
+- Hey Digital / HeyDigital
 - Galley
-- Gelee
-- HeyDigital
-- Revvix / Spektion
-- Superposition
-- Persona Digital
+- Clover
+- Persona
+
+Use Superpower only for benefits/healthcare mechanism language and cleaned
+low-certainty relevance bridges. Use Revvix / Spektion and Superposition only
+for explicit event/logistics or job-post/founder-hiring motions. Do not use
+Gelee, westpark villas, Amplify Security, or raw old-client archive examples as
+runtime inspiration unless the caller explicitly provides them as campaign
+calibration.
 
 When the brief is sparse but the motion clearly matches an archived winner,
-borrow the closest message shape from
-`gold-standard-message-examples.md` before inventing a new structure.
+borrow the closest approved shape from `gold-standard-runtime-message-pack.md`
+first, then use `gold-standard-message-examples.md` only for strategy skeletons
+before inventing a new structure.
 
 ### Single Row
 
@@ -2639,12 +2764,12 @@ research → condense → 10 angle agents in parallel → finalizer combines bes
 - Background: {1-2 lines}
 
 ## Voice + Outbound Rules (condensed — full files available via Read tool)
-- Use `.sellable/configs/core/context-modes.md` to choose the right context stance, then run an anti-AI audit against `.sellable/configs/core/anti-ai-writing-style.md` before returning copy.
-- Flow skeleton: opener → pain → **what the product IS** → **what it DOES** (one action per line, up to three) → deployment ease → CTA → optional PS
+- Use `~/.sellable/configs/core/context-modes.md` to choose the right context stance, then run an anti-AI audit against `~/.sellable/configs/core/anti-ai-writing-style.md` before returning copy.
+- Flow skeleton: opener → pain → **what the product IS** → **what it DOES** (one action per line, up to three; prefer short bullets for 3 repeated-subject product actions) → deployment ease → CTA → optional PS
 - A cold reader must be able to state what the product does in one sentence after reading. Require a crisp `Product is an X that does Y` anchor before any action breakdown. Do not gesture at "that chain" / "the stack" / "that work"
 - Blank line between every sentence in the body. The body renders as a sequence of one-line paragraphs separated by blank lines, not as multi-sentence paragraphs. Target 6-10 one-line paragraphs
 - 5th-grade reading level by default. Cut glue language (handoff, order-to-cash, rip-and-replace). Keep brief-native product/tool names (Shopify, HubSpot)
-- No bullet points, no "I noticed...", no compliment sandwiches, no em dashes unless the canonical example uses one
+- No feature/benefit marketing bullet lists, no "I noticed...", no compliment sandwiches, no em dashes unless the canonical example uses one. Exception: use a short bullet stack when 3 adjacent product actions repeat the same subject pattern and bullets improve mobile readability.
 - No synthesized framing ("at your stage", "in a setup like yours", "running X means...", "X means you're likely...")
 - 3 candidates then `Finalizer Pass` — pick best opener, proof sentence, bridge, CTA across them and assemble the winner
 - PS is optional; only include if it materially strengthens the fit case. When included, use `I` / `our CEO` / `our team` / `we` voice, never bare first names. At most two proof beats, tied to why the sender understands the buyer's pain. No three-credential resume lists
@@ -2706,7 +2831,7 @@ research → condense → 10 angle agents in parallel → finalizer combines bes
 8. Return: { success: true, message: "...", research: [...], anglesExplored: 10 }
 ```
 
-**IMPORTANT:** Load `.sellable/configs/core/about-me.md`, `.sellable/configs/core/my-company.md`, `.sellable/configs/core/context-modes.md`, `.sellable/configs/core/proof-ledger.md`, `.sellable/configs/core/wins-ledger.md`, `.sellable/configs/core/anti-ai-writing-style.md`, `.sellable/configs/writing/outbound.md`, and `.sellable/insights/cross-skill.md` once in the lead agent. Use the legacy style guide fallback when present. Pass condensed versions to workers so context stays focused.
+**IMPORTANT:** Load `~/.sellable/configs/core/about-me.md`, `~/.sellable/configs/core/my-company.md`, `~/.sellable/configs/core/context-modes.md`, `~/.sellable/configs/core/proof-ledger.md`, `~/.sellable/configs/core/wins-ledger.md`, `~/.sellable/configs/core/anti-ai-writing-style.md`, `~/.sellable/configs/writing/outbound.md`, and `~/.sellable/insights/cross-skill.md` once in the lead agent. Use the legacy style guide fallback when present. Pass condensed versions to workers so context stays focused.
 
 ## Batch Approval