@sellable/mcp 0.1.433 → 0.1.435

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.433",
+  "version": "0.1.435",
   "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

@@ -57,9 +57,10 @@ explicit lead-magnet comment, reply, or opt-in.
 
 Shared evergreen exception: for Shared Signal Discovery and other shared
 evergreen lanes, `hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level
-and does not pretend engagement. Reject `might be interested` and `saw you in a
-few conversations` as openers; require a concrete signal/problem bridge or omit
-the source line.
+and does not pretend engagement. `Saw you in a few conversations around X, so
+hope this is relevant` is allowed for Shared Signal Discovery when the source is
+truly third-party and topic-level. Reject `might be interested` as an opener
+because it assumes intent.
 
 **Severity:** REJECT
 

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

@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ 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 when it opens with `might be interested` or `saw you in a few conversations`. `Hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level and does not pretend engagement. Use the safe pattern below when a concrete signal/problem bridge is stronger.
+Do not use the Superpower weak-signal hedge pattern for Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery when it opens with `might be interested`; that assumes intent. `Hope this is relevant` and topic-level `saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant` are allowed when they do not pretend engagement. Use the safe pattern below when a concrete signal/problem bridge is stronger.
 
 ### Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery Safe Pattern
 

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."` Shared evergreen signal exception: `hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level and avoids false warm engagement, but `might be interested` and `saw you in a few conversations` 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.
+- **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: `hope this is relevant` and `saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant` are allowed for Shared Signal Discovery when they stay topic-level and avoid false warm engagement, but `might be interested` is blocked because it assumes intent. Use a concrete signal/problem bridge when it is stronger, 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/create-evergreen-campaigns/SKILL.md

@@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
      Short form: Do not pass the warm template into Shared Signal Discovery or Shared Cold Fallback.
      Short form: Shared lanes must reject generic product-summary samples.
      Short form: Shared lanes must reject three nearly identical samples.
-     Short form: Shared lanes must reject low-confidence relevance hedges except "hope this is relevant".
+     Short form: Shared lanes must reject intent-assumptive hedges such as "might be interested"; Shared Signal Discovery may use "saw you in a few conversations ... hope this is relevant".
      Short form: Shared lanes must reject internal workflow vocabulary.
      Short form: revise or rerun the packaged create-campaign/generate-messages path.
    - **Post Engagers** first-message style: short, casual, references the
@@ -1259,11 +1259,12 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
      product summaries, or repeated structure are bad. If the first generated
      batch violates these rules, rerun, but record that as a repaired UAT path
      rather than the desired zero-shot path.
-     Do not use low-confidence relevance hedges such as "might be interested"
-     or "saw you in a few conversations" in Shared Signal Discovery samples.
-     "Hope this is relevant" is allowed when it stays topic-level and does not
-     pretend engagement. Translate source/tool terms into prospect-facing
-     business language; do not put internal workflow
+     Do not use intent-assumptive hedges such as "might be interested" in
+     Shared Signal Discovery samples. "Hope this is relevant" and topic-level
+     bridges such as "saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope
+     this is relevant" are allowed when they do not pretend engagement.
+     Translate source/tool terms into prospect-facing business language; do not
+     put internal workflow
      vocabulary such as "Codex-style workflow", "MCP", "agent workflows",
      "Claude Code", or "Claude-style agent workflows" in customer-facing
      message one. Also avoid generic product-process nouns such as "dashboard",
@@ -1275,7 +1276,7 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
      Short form: Shared Signal Discovery uses no self-intro such as "I'm building Sellable".
      Short form: Shared Signal Discovery uses no self-intro such as "We're building Sellable".
      Short form: Shared Signal Discovery uses no "I've put together".
-     Short form: no low-confidence relevance hedge such as "might be interested" or "saw you in a few conversations"; "hope this is relevant" is allowed.
+     Short form: no "might be interested"; "hope this is relevant" and topic-level "saw you in a few conversations ... hope this is relevant" are allowed.
      Short form: no internal workflow vocabulary such as "Codex-style workflow", "MCP", "agent workflows", "Claude Code", or "Claude-style agent workflows".
    - **Shared Cold Fallback** first-message style: cold, direct, and cohesive.
      It must not pretend there was engagement, must not say "saw you pop up",
@@ -1293,7 +1294,8 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
      create-campaign message workflow proves a better delivery format.
      "Hope this is relevant" is allowed when it does not pretend engagement and
      immediately ties to a concrete buyer problem. Do not open with "might be
-     interested" or "saw you in a few conversations". Do not use a repeated
+     interested" or "saw you in a few conversations" in Shared Cold Fallback.
+     Do not use a repeated
      product-definition paragraph such as "Sellable is a GTM system" across
      samples; every reviewed cold sample should be specific enough to the role,
      company, or problem that the three sample messages do not share the same
@@ -1314,7 +1316,7 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
      Short form: Shared Cold Fallback uses no "I've put together".
      Short form: Shared Cold Fallback uses no opt-out shrug such as "If this isn't relevant, ignore me".
      Short form: Shared Cold Fallback uses no product-stack dump.
-     Short form: "hope this is relevant" is allowed; "might be interested" and "saw you in a few conversations" are not.
+     Short form: "hope this is relevant" is allowed; "might be interested" is not.
      Short form: no repeated product-definition paragraph such as "Sellable is a GTM system".
     - Customer-visible evergreen lanes must enable ICP filtering before Message
       Drafting. This applies to Post Engagers, Shared Signal Discovery, and
@@ -1403,13 +1405,13 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
       or a product-stack dump that repeats the same
       Sellable/Codex/Claude-Code feature summary across prospects. For all
       shared lanes, reject generic product-summary samples, repeated
-      near-identical samples, low-confidence relevance hedges such as "might be
-      interested" or "saw you in a few conversations", internal workflow
-      vocabulary, any sample with non-empty `issues`, and any preserved Post
-      Engagers opener; revise or rerun the packaged
-      create-campaign/generate-messages path before reporting completion. Do not
-      approve or final-report samples with `verdict:"passed"` and non-empty
-      `issues`.
+      near-identical samples, intent-assumptive hedges such as "might be
+      interested", source-context mismatches such as "saw you in a few
+      conversations" in Shared Cold Fallback, internal workflow vocabulary, any
+      sample with non-empty `issues`, and any preserved Post Engagers opener;
+      revise or rerun the packaged create-campaign/generate-messages path before
+      reporting completion. Do not approve or final-report samples
+      with `verdict:"passed"` and non-empty `issues`.
    - The first review batch exists and at least 3 review rows have generated
      messages from the approved brief. If fewer than 3 usable rows exist, report
      the actual count and why.

package/skills/generate-messages/SKILL.md

@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ 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.
 
-- `might be interested` and `saw you in a few conversations` are blocked openers for shared evergreen lanes. `hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level and does not pretend engagement.
+- `might be interested` is blocked for shared evergreen lanes because it assumes intent. `hope this is relevant` and Shared Signal Discovery bridges like `saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant` are allowed when they stay topic-level and do not pretend engagement.
 - 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.
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ or a founder self-intro.
 
 Short form: shared evergreen copy may use `hope this is relevant` when it avoids false engagement claims.
 Short form: shared evergreen copy cannot use `might be interested`.
-Short form: shared evergreen copy cannot use `saw you in a few conversations`.
+Short form: Shared Signal Discovery may use `saw you in a few conversations ... hope this is relevant` when it is topic-level and evidence-backed.
 Short form: shared evergreen copy cannot use `I'm building`.
 Short form: write a concrete signal/problem bridge instead of a rejected relevance hedge.
 
@@ -314,13 +314,14 @@ conditional good/bad fill reference.
   `[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 a permissioned bridge. For
-shared evergreen lanes, do not use `might be interested` or `saw you in a few
-conversations`; `hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level and
-avoids false engagement claims. Use a concrete signal/problem bridge instead of
-rejected relevance hedges. 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
+shared evergreen lanes, do not use `might be interested`; `hope this is
+relevant` and Shared Signal Discovery bridges like `saw you in a few
+conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant` are allowed when they
+stay topic-level and avoid false engagement claims. Use a concrete
+signal/problem bridge instead of rejected relevance hedges when it is stronger.
+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.]`
@@ -483,7 +484,7 @@ artifact.**
 
    - `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` 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 around {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` for Shared Signal Discovery and 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
@@ -547,14 +548,14 @@ 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 only for
-   non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns; it is blocked for Shared Evergreen
-   Signal Discovery. `saw you commented on {{post_context}}` and `your LinkedIn
+   {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` is acceptable for Shared Signal
+   Discovery and non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns when the source is truly
+   third-party. `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 use `hope this is relevant` without
-   source-mechanics narration, translate the topic into a concrete buyer/problem
-   bridge, or omit the source line.
+   evergreen thread discovery, use the topic-level bridge above, use `hope this
+   is relevant` without source-mechanics narration, 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 for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns: `saw you in a few
@@ -562,10 +563,11 @@ artifact.**
    be off, but if outbound is relevant to what you're working on...`, or `hope
    this is relevant if...`. For shared evergreen lanes, `hope this is relevant`
    is allowed when it stays topic-level and avoids false engagement claims, but
-   `might be interested` and `saw you in a few conversations` 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.
+   `might be interested` is blocked because it assumes intent; `saw you in a
+   few conversations ... hope this is relevant` is allowed for Shared Signal
+   Discovery when it stays topic-level. Use a concrete signal/problem bridge
+   when it is stronger. 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
@@ -1563,9 +1565,10 @@ Before `confirmed`, run the selected winner against these gates:
   `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...`. Exception: for Shared Signal Discovery and
-  other shared evergreen lanes, `might be interested` and `saw you in a few
-  conversations` are blocked; `hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays
-  topic-level and avoids false engagement claims.
+  other shared evergreen lanes, `might be interested` is blocked because it
+  assumes intent; `hope this is relevant` and Shared Signal Discovery bridges
+  like `saw you in a few conversations around...` are allowed when they stay
+  topic-level and avoid false engagement claims.
 - **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
@@ -1868,9 +1871,10 @@ about`, or `clearly relevant` are BLOCKED. Source-y phrases such as
   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. For shared evergreen lanes, skip the `might be
-  interested` / `saw you in a few conversations` versions and use `hope this is
-  relevant` only when it stays topic-level and avoids false engagement claims,
-  or use the concrete bridge version. Longer source-recap forms such as `you
+  interested` version and use `hope this is relevant` or `saw you in a few
+  conversations ... hope this is relevant` only when it stays topic-level and
+  avoids false engagement claims, or 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.
@@ -2018,7 +2022,7 @@ 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.` 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}}, saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant.` For Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns.
 - `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.
@@ -2281,7 +2285,7 @@ Rules:
 - 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."` 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 around [topic], so hope this is relevant."` Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal only.
   - `"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]."`
@@ -2299,11 +2303,11 @@ 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 `might be interested` or
-  `saw you in a few conversations` weak signal-led opener shapes above. `Hope
-  this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level and avoids false
-  engagement claims. Translate the source into a concrete problem bridge when
-  that is stronger, e.g.
+- For Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery, do not use the `might be interested`
+  weak signal-led opener shape above. `Hope this is relevant` and `saw you in a
+  few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant` are allowed when
+  they stay topic-level and avoid false engagement claims. Translate the source
+  into a concrete problem bridge when that is stronger, 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.
@@ -2316,10 +2320,11 @@ 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`. For shared evergreen lanes, `might be
-interested` and `saw you in a few conversations` weak signal bridges are
-blocked; `hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level and avoids
-false engagement claims. Use a concrete signal/problem bridge when it is
-stronger. Use the self-aware raise-hand shapes only when
+interested` is blocked because it assumes intent; `hope this is relevant` and
+Shared Signal Discovery `saw you in a few conversations ... hope this is
+relevant` bridges are allowed when they stay topic-level and avoid false
+engagement claims. Use a concrete signal/problem bridge when it is stronger. 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