@sellable/mcp 0.1.398 → 0.1.400

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.398",
+  "version": "0.1.400",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/ai-tells.md

@@ -55,6 +55,12 @@ raise your hand for X (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but
 this felt too on the nose to ignore"` shapes only when the source was an
 explicit lead-magnet comment, reply, or opt-in.
 
+Shared evergreen exception: for Shared Signal Discovery and other shared
+evergreen lanes, the weak-signal permissioned bridge above is still a tell.
+Reject `hope this is relevant`, `might be interested`, and `saw you in a few
+conversations` as openers; require a concrete signal/problem bridge or omit the
+source line.
+
 **Severity:** REJECT
 
 ## Tell #3 — Explicit date or duration references about the recipient

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/gold-standard-message-examples.md

@@ -203,6 +203,32 @@ Why it works:
 **Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism - 1,000+ conditions from one blood
 draw), rank 3 (risk before claims).
 
+Do not use the Superpower weak-signal hedge pattern for Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery. Shared evergreen lanes are reused across multiple senders and must not open with `hope this is relevant`, `might be interested`, or `saw you in a few conversations`. Use the safe pattern below instead.
+
+### Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery Safe Pattern
+
+Use when the campaign is a shared evergreen signal lane and the source signal is
+real but not sender-owned.
+
+```text
+Hey {{first_name}},
+
+The AI-assisted GTM conversations keep coming back to one problem: turning good LinkedIn signal into review-ready pipeline without another outbound dashboard.
+
+Sellable helps teams find signal-matched prospects, filter for fit, and generate reviewed LinkedIn copy from one workflow.
+
+Curious if LinkedIn outbound is a channel you're trying to make more reliable this quarter?
+```
+
+Why it works:
+
+- no low-confidence relevance hedge
+- no `I'm building` or founder-only first person
+- no internal workflow vocabulary such as Codex, MCP, agent workflows, workflow
+  table, lead source, or signal discovery
+- the signal becomes a buyer problem instead of an activity-log opener
+- safe for multiple senders attached to the same shared lane
+
 ## Conditional Examples
 
 Use these only when the campaign motion matches.

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/gold-standard-message-patterns.md

@@ -199,11 +199,21 @@ Shape:
 Prefer:
 
 - lowercase or casual casing when the motion supports it
-- an honest line like "hope this is relevant" or "so may be off, but this seemed relevant"
+- an honest line like "hope this is relevant" or "so may be off, but this seemed relevant" only for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns
 - a concrete CTA that names the useful conversation or asset
 - binary options only when the brief explicitly supports two real next steps
 - direct wording over polished marketing language
 
+Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery override:
+
+- Do not use `hope this is relevant`, `might be interested`, or `saw you in a
+  few conversations` as the opener.
+- Do not use `I'm building`, `I've mapped`, `my company`, or `my team`.
+- Turn the source topic into a buyer problem bridge, then write the product line
+  in team/company voice.
+- If the source topic cannot support a concrete bridge, omit the source line and
+  start from a role/company/problem observation.
+
 Avoid:
 
 - copying a gimmick like "from a claude code terminal" unless the brief

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/sellable-cleanup-rules.md

@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ Revise or reject the sample when any of these happen.
 - **actions are implied, not stated** — e.g. "runs that chain as AI agents" when a clearer version would name the specific actions (verb + object, one per line)
 - **category-level opener used when a per-lead signal exists** — if `lead-sample.json` carries any per-lead signal (post, hire, visible tool, topic engagement), the opener must reference it. Category-level openers of shape `"Most [category] teams still do X by hand"` are only acceptable when zero per-lead signal is in the sample. When a category-level opener is used as fallback, Findings must flag it explicitly
 - **mind-reading from engagement signals** — a topic engagement, post, public activity, role, company, or hiring trigger does not prove buyer intent. Reject phrases like `"AI-GTM stack is clearly on your mind"`, `"you're clearly focused on..."`, `"obviously relevant"`, or `"already thinking about..."` unless that exact priority is explicitly present in `lead-sample.json`. Translate to low-certainty buyer context or omit the signal from copy.
-- **source-y signal narration** — reject `"saw you on..."`, `"saw you engaging with..."`, `"you commented on..."`, `"your LinkedIn activity..."`, `"you might not remember the thread..."`, `"found you through [source] and your role looked close..."`, or any line that makes the recipient feel watched unless the chosen archived motion is intentionally self-aware about the signal. For sender-owned LinkedIn post sources, a light first-person acknowledgment is allowed when row data proves a reaction/comment: `"appreciate you showing some love on my post about [topic]"` or `"thanks for showing support on my [topic] post"`. Do not name a comment unless comment text is present. Follow the acknowledgment with a soft relevance bridge before broad pain/product copy, e.g. `"figured this might be relevant if LinkedIn is becoming more of a GTM channel for [company]"`. For third-party LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, a topic-level bridge is allowed when it explains why the note exists and stays apologetically uncertain: `"saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."`, `"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."` Reserve `"raise your hand"` language for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins. Translate the signal into natural buyer context or omit it.
+- **source-y signal narration** — reject `"saw you on..."`, `"saw you engaging with..."`, `"you commented on..."`, `"your LinkedIn activity..."`, `"you might not remember the thread..."`, `"found you through [source] and your role looked close..."`, or any line that makes the recipient feel watched unless the chosen archived motion is intentionally self-aware about the signal. For sender-owned LinkedIn post sources, a light first-person acknowledgment is allowed when row data proves a reaction/comment: `"appreciate you showing some love on my post about [topic]"` or `"thanks for showing support on my [topic] post"`. Do not name a comment unless comment text is present. Follow the acknowledgment with a soft relevance bridge before broad pain/product copy, e.g. `"figured this might be relevant if LinkedIn is becoming more of a GTM channel for [company]"`. For third-party LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, a topic-level bridge is allowed when it explains why the note exists and stays apologetically uncertain: `"saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."`, `"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."` Shared evergreen signal exception: these hedges are blocked for Shared Signal Discovery and other shared evergreen lanes; use a concrete signal/problem bridge or omit the source line. Reserve `"raise your hand"` language for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins. Translate the signal into natural buyer context or omit it.
 - **sender-owned source rendered as third-party** — hard fail when the source post is sender-owned and the draft says `"found you in a thread"`, `"saw you in a thread"`, `"saw you in conversations"`, or `"saw you in a few conversations"` as if the post were third-party. For sender-owned sources, the copy must either use a light first-person acknowledgment plus a soft relevance bridge, or omit the source line. If multiple senders may send the campaign, or the final sender/source-owner match is ambiguous, do not assume a specific `my post` voice or name a specific sender; omit the sender-owned source line until row-level sender ownership is proven. Neutral low-certainty thread/source language is only for truly third-party sources.
 - **fake line-to-line continuity** — reject line stacks where the source acknowledgment, relevance bridge, product line, and CTA do not actually build on each other. Each line must make the next line feel earned. If two adjacent lines could be swapped, deleted, or joined with `"anyway"` without changing the meaning, the transition is fake. In sender-owned post campaigns, the chain should be: support on my post -> why this topic may matter for the company -> what the product/problem does about that same topic -> low-friction next step.
 - **assumptive title-fit opener** — reject `"Your [role] role at [company] looked close to this problem"` or `"looked close to this outbound campaign problem"`. This asserts fit from title/company. Keep the apologetic uncertainty instead: `"may be off, but if [workflow] is relevant to what you're working on..."`.

package/skills/generate-messages/SKILL.md

@@ -252,6 +252,35 @@ must read like final create-campaign/generate-messages output.
   samples. If two samples would still read the same after replacing names and
   companies, revise or rerun.
 
+### Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery hard gate
+
+For Shared Signal Discovery and other shared evergreen lanes, signal-led copy
+must be safer than the legacy weak-signal examples. These lanes are reused by
+multiple senders, so the first line cannot sound like a scraped-activity excuse
+or a founder self-intro.
+
+- `hope this is relevant`, `might be interested`, and `saw you in a few conversations` are blocked openers for shared evergreen lanes.
+- do not write first-person singular founder language such as `I'm building`,
+  `I've mapped`, `my company`, or `my team` unless exactly one sender can
+  credibly say it and the lane is not shared.
+- Do not put internal workflow vocabulary in buyer-facing copy: `Codex`, `MCP`,
+  `Claude-style agent workflows`, `agent workflows`, `workflow table`, `lead
+  source`, or `signal discovery`.
+- Write a concrete signal/problem bridge instead of a relevance hedge. Good
+  shapes are `the AI-assisted GTM conversations keep coming back to [buyer
+  problem]`, `teams trying to turn LinkedIn signal into pipeline usually hit
+  [problem]`, or `when [observable business moment] is live, [buyer workflow]
+  gets harder to run consistently`.
+- If the row evidence is too weak to write a concrete bridge, omit the source
+  line and start from a buyer problem, event, role, or company observation.
+- Shared evergreen lanes must pass this gate before `confirmed`, before saving a
+  reusable template, and before any route-proof approval.
+
+Short form: shared evergreen copy cannot use `hope this is relevant`.
+Short form: shared evergreen copy cannot use `might be interested`.
+Short form: shared evergreen copy cannot use `I'm building`.
+Short form: write a concrete signal/problem bridge instead of a relevance hedge.
+
 ### Rich Personalization Contract
 
 The `create-campaign` asset `references/ai-native-tokens.md` is the canonical
@@ -269,12 +298,15 @@ conditional good/bad fill reference.
 - Use this shape for any hook, bridge, or row-specific relevance line:
   `[PERSONALIZATION_LINE — Intent: write one short sentence that anchors the
 note to why this might matter now. DO: connect one observable role/company/
-activity signal to the buyer problem or offer with low-certainty language like
-"hope this is relevant if...", "saw you might be interested in...", "saw you in
-a few conversations around...", or "figured this might matter if...". DON'T: recap
-their resume, list companies, compliment their background, name a product their
-company sells, use source-citation phrasing, or use generic nouns like "your
-work".
+activity signal to the buyer problem or offer with a permissioned bridge. For
+shared evergreen lanes, do not use `hope this is relevant`, `might be
+interested`, or `saw you in a few conversations`; use a concrete
+signal/problem bridge instead. For non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only,
+legacy low-certainty language like "hope this is relevant if..." or "so may be
+off, but this seemed relevant" can be considered when the source is otherwise
+awkward. DON'T: recap their resume, list companies, compliment their
+background, name a product their company sells, use source-citation phrasing, or
+use generic nouns like "your work".
 FALLBACK: if unsupported, omit the entire line.]`
 - The rendered personalization line should usually be 6-14 words. If it needs
   two clauses, multiple companies, or abstract tags like `GTM`, `international
@@ -433,9 +465,9 @@ artifact.**
 
    Safer shapes:
 
-   - `hope this is relevant if {{signal_topic}} is part of the plan`
-   - `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`
+   - `hope this is relevant if {{signal_topic}} is part of the plan` for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only
+   - `saw you might be interested in {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only
+   - `saw you in a few conversations around {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only
    - `saw you in a few conversations about {{signal_topic}}, so may be off, but this seemed relevant`
    - `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
@@ -499,20 +531,22 @@ artifact.**
    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. 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}}...`.
+   {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` is acceptable only for
+   non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns; it is blocked for Shared Evergreen
+   Signal Discovery. `saw you commented on {{post_context}}` and `your LinkedIn
+   activity around...` are not acceptable. Reserve `raise your hand` phrasing
+   for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins. For ordinary shared
+   evergreen thread discovery, either translate the topic into a concrete
+   buyer/problem bridge or omit the source line.
 
    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 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.
+   Good for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns: `saw you in a few
+   conversations about outbound, so may be off, but this seemed relevant`, `may
+   be off, but if outbound is relevant to what you're working on...`, or `hope
+   this is relevant if...`. For shared evergreen lanes, these hedges are not
+   enough; use a concrete signal/problem bridge or omit the source line. Bad:
+   `your role at {{company}} looked close...`, because it asserts fit from a
+   title and tells the buyer about themselves.
 
    Block wordier source narration such as `you might not remember the thread,
    but I found you through a {{signal_topic}} discussion and your
@@ -1509,7 +1543,10 @@ Before `confirmed`, run the selected winner against these gates:
   the lead sample. If desire is inferred, use tentative framing like
   `hope this is relevant if...`, `saw you might be interested in...`,
   `saw you in a few conversations around...`, `figured this might matter if...`,
-  or `if you've ever wanted...`.
+  or `if you've ever wanted...`. Exception: for Shared Signal Discovery and
+  other shared evergreen lanes, `hope this is relevant`, `might be interested`,
+  and `saw you in a few conversations` are blocked; use a concrete
+  signal/problem bridge or omit the source line.
 - **Buyer-first opener:** after the greeting, the first substantive line
   should usually enter the buyer's world: a real signal, current-state
   pain, buyer-owned priority, or useful artifact. Sender-origin can come
@@ -1810,8 +1847,11 @@ about`, or `clearly relevant` are BLOCKED. Source-y phrases such as
   `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`, `found you
   in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed
-  relevant`, `figured this might matter if [workflow] is live at [company]`, or a similarly natural
-  line. Longer source-recap forms such as `you might not remember the thread,
+  relevant`, `figured this might matter if [workflow] is live at [company]`, or
+  a similarly natural line. For shared evergreen lanes, skip the `hope this is
+  relevant` / `might be interested` / `saw you in a few conversations` versions
+  and use the concrete bridge version. Longer source-recap forms such as `you
+  might not remember the thread,
   but I found you through a [topic] discussion...` are BLOCKED; they narrate
   the scrape path instead of creating buyer relevance.
 - **Engagement reference is opt-in, not the default opener:** do not
@@ -1956,9 +1996,9 @@ matters to the buyer, why this might be relevant, or the operator-reality that
 led to it. Acceptable openers:
 
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, [one plain sentence about what we built].`
-- `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}}, hope this is relevant if [buyer context] is still on your plate.` Not for shared evergreen lanes.
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant.` Not for shared evergreen lanes.
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant.` Not for shared evergreen lanes.
 - `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.
@@ -2219,9 +2259,9 @@ Rules:
 - if `lead-sample.json` carries **any** per-lead signal for this lead — a recent post, a recent hire, a visible tool in the headline, a topic engagement, a public initiative — the **message must reference it specifically**. Category-level copy is rejected.
 - default placement is **Block 3**, not Block 1. Keep Block 1 substance-first unless the archived motion clearly earns a signal-led opener without falling into source-citation / talk-at phrasing.
 - acceptable signal use by default:
-  - `"Hope this is relevant if [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."`
+  - `"Hope this is relevant if [topic] is part of the plan."` Non-evergreen weak-signal only; blocked for shared evergreen lanes.
+  - `"Saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant."` Non-evergreen weak-signal only; blocked for shared evergreen lanes.
+  - `"Saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant."` Non-evergreen weak-signal only; blocked for shared evergreen lanes.
   - `"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]."`
@@ -2239,6 +2279,11 @@ Rules:
   - `"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.
+- For Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery, do not use the weak signal-led opener
+  shapes above. Translate the source into a concrete problem bridge, e.g.
+  `"The AI-assisted GTM conversations keep coming back to one problem: turning
+  good LinkedIn signal into review-ready pipeline without another dashboard."`
+  Then connect the product in buyer language.
 - 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
@@ -2247,7 +2292,9 @@ Rules:
 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 `found you in a thread about [topic], so may be
-off, but this seemed relevant`. Use the self-aware raise-hand shapes only when
+off, but this seemed relevant`. For shared evergreen lanes, those weak signal
+bridges are blocked; use a concrete signal/problem bridge instead. 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