@sellable/mcp 0.1.437 → 0.1.438

package/dist/tools/setup-evergreen-campaigns.d.ts

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 type SetupEvergreenCampaignsInput = {
     mode?: "plan" | "verify";
     depth?: "structure_only" | "customer_visible";
+    handoffMode?: "create_campaign_goals";
     yolo?: boolean;
     allConnectedSenders?: boolean;
     selectedSenderIds?: string[];
@@ -31,6 +32,11 @@ export declare const setupEvergreenCampaignsToolDefinitions: {
                 enum: string[];
                 description: string;
             };
+            handoffMode: {
+                type: string;
+                enum: string[];
+                description: string;
+            };
             yolo: {
                 type: string;
                 description: string;

package/dist/tools/setup-evergreen-campaigns.js

@@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ export const setupEvergreenCampaignsToolDefinitions = [
                     enum: ["structure_only", "customer_visible"],
                     description: 'Use "customer_visible" for full setup proof or "structure_only" when only ensuring lane shells/config.',
                 },
+                handoffMode: {
+                    type: "string",
+                    enum: ["create_campaign_goals"],
+                    description: 'plan mode only. When set to "create_campaign_goals", returns concise per-lane `$sellable:create-campaign` goal prompts and required inputs for simplified worker handoffs without changing verification behavior.',
+                },
                 yolo: {
                     type: "boolean",
                     description: "plan mode only. Requests auto-executable lane packets when state is safe; never authorizes cleanup, launch, scheduling, sending, or ambiguous target choice.",
@@ -88,6 +93,7 @@ export function setupEvergreenCampaigns(input) {
         mode: input.mode,
         yolo: input.mode === "verify" ? undefined : input.yolo,
         depth: input.depth,
+        handoffMode: input.mode === "verify" ? undefined : input.handoffMode,
         allConnectedSenders: input.allConnectedSenders,
         selectedSenderIds: input.selectedSenderIds,
         postEngagerSenderIds: input.postEngagerSenderIds,

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.437",
+  "version": "0.1.438",
   "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

@@ -44,7 +44,8 @@ reference and no self-aware reason the note might matter.
 them. Real founders do not interrogate the recipient's data feed or
 recite profile facts. `"I noticed your..."` reads as scraped intel.
 
-**Allowed alternative:** Use a concise permissioned bridge:
+**Allowed alternative:** Use a concise permissioned bridge for Shared Signal
+Discovery and non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns:
 `"Hope this is relevant if X is still live."`, `"Saw you might be
 interested in X, so hope this is relevant."`, `"Saw you in a few
 conversations around X, so hope this is relevant."`, or `"Found you in a
@@ -55,12 +56,10 @@ 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, `hope this is relevant` is allowed when it stays topic-level
-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.
+Shared evergreen exception: for Shared Signal Discovery, `hope this is
+relevant` and topic-level `saw you in a few conversations about/around X, so
+hope this is relevant` are allowed when evidence-backed and not engagement-
+claiming. `Might be interested` remains blocked because it assumes intent.
 
 **Severity:** REJECT
 
@@ -265,10 +264,13 @@ back to them, then pivot to the product. The line is name-drop-heavy,
 abstract, and swappable across hundreds of leads.
 
 **Allowed alternative:** Use a short relevance hypothesis that connects
-one observed signal to why the note may matter: `"Hope this is relevant
-if market expansion is still on your plate."`, `"Saw you might be
-interested in Claude + GTM, so hope this is relevant."`, or `"Saw you in
-a few conversations around international growth, so hope this is relevant."`
+one observed signal to why the note may matter. For non-evergreen weak-signal
+campaigns that can be `"Hope this is relevant if market expansion is still on
+your plate."`, `"Saw you might be interested in Claude + GTM, so hope this is
+relevant."`, or `"Saw you in a few conversations around international growth,
+so hope this is relevant."` For Shared Signal Discovery, the topic-level
+conversation bridge is allowed when evidence-backed; otherwise use a concrete
+buyer/problem bridge instead of the source-thread opener.
 
 **Severity:** REJECT
 
@@ -340,10 +342,13 @@ operators usually soften the bridge or make it explicitly tentative.
 **Allowed alternative:** Use a permissioned, lower-certainty bridge:
 `"saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully)
 worth sending."` only for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or
-opt-ins. Otherwise use `"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."`, or `"found you in a thread about [topic], so
-may be off, but this seemed relevant."`
+opt-ins. Otherwise use `"saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so
+hope this is relevant."` for Shared Signal Discovery when topic-level and
+evidence-backed, or `"saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is
+relevant."` / `"found you in a thread about [topic], so may be off, but this
+seemed relevant."` only for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns. For other
+shared evergreen lanes, translate the source into a concrete buyer/problem
+bridge or omit it.
 
 **Severity:** REJECT
 

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

@@ -203,7 +203,58 @@ 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`; 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.
+### Dotwork Shared Signal Discovery Gold Standard
+
+Use this as the gold standard when a shared Signal Discovery lane has real
+topic evidence, an InMail format, and enough founder/operator proof to make the
+note feel earned.
+
+```text
+Subject: initiatives + business outcomes + one live picture
+
+Hey {{first_name}},
+
+Saw you in a few conversations about {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant.
+
+I helped build {{credible_prior_company}}, so I've seen firsthand where {{buyer_category}} tools fall short.
+
+{{product}} keeps {{buyer_object_1}}, {{buyer_object_2}}, and {{buyer_object_3}} connected in one live model.
+
+It also gives AI agents structured context to work from, instead of stale exports.
+
+Open to a quick look at how {{company}}'s operating model would map in?
+
+P.S. We're backed by {{proof_point}} as a modern alternative to {{competitor_set}}.
+```
+
+Why it works:
+
+- the subject follows the plus-sign A + B + C pattern: topic + outcome + concrete picture
+- the opener is topic-level and low-certainty without exposing scrape mechanics
+- the credibility line explains why the sender has earned the point of view
+- the product is specific, not three generic product-summary sentences
+- the CTA offers a concrete mapped view for the recipient's company
+- the PS uses proof to answer a category objection, not to brag
+
+Transfer limits:
+
+- Use `Saw you in a few conversations about/around [topic], so hope this is
+  relevant` only for Shared Signal Discovery when the source evidence supports
+  the topic and the line does not claim a reaction, comment, sender-authored
+  post, or other unproven engagement.
+- Do not use `might be interested`; that assumes intent from weak evidence.
+- Do not use `found you in a thread`; that exposes sourcing mechanics.
+- Do not use founder/operator proof unless the brief supports it and every
+  attached sender can credibly send the line.
+- For InMail, keep the body as one cohesive message and use a concrete
+  plus-sign subject like `initiatives + business outcomes + one live picture`.
+
+The Superpower weak-signal hedge can also work for Shared Evergreen Signal
+Discovery when the line is topic-level and evidence-backed. Prefer the Dotwork
+shape above when the brief supports an InMail subject, sender credibility,
+specific product mechanism, company-specific CTA, and PS proof. Use the safe
+pattern below when a concrete signal/problem bridge is stronger than a
+low-certainty source opener.
 
 ### Shared Evergreen Signal Discovery Safe Pattern
 

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

@@ -199,20 +199,25 @@ 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" only for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns
+- an honest line like "hope this is relevant" or "so may be off, but this seemed relevant" for Shared Signal Discovery or 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.
+- `Saw you in a few conversations about/around [topic], so hope this is
+  relevant` is allowed when the source evidence supports the topic and the line
+  does not claim a reaction, comment, sender-authored post, or other unproven
+  engagement.
+- Do not use `might be interested`; that assumes intent from weak evidence.
+- Do not use `found you in a thread`; that exposes sourcing mechanics.
 - 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.
+- Prefer the Dotwork shape when the message is InMail: a concrete A + B + C
+  subject, topic-level relevance opener, proof of earned sender perspective,
+  specific product mechanism, company-specific CTA, and optional PS proof.
+- If the source topic cannot support a low-certainty topic bridge, omit the
+  source line and start from a role/company/problem observation.
 
 Avoid:
 
@@ -316,6 +321,8 @@ Avoid:
 
 Prefer:
 
+- concrete A + B + C plus-sign subjects for InMail, especially Shared Signal
+  Discovery, such as `initiatives + business outcomes + one live picture`
 - event or asset name
 - buyer-language workflow
 - concrete offer

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

@@ -74,7 +74,32 @@ 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` 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.
+- **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 Shared Signal
+  Discovery and non-evergreen 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 `"hope this is relevant if
+  [topic] is still on your plate."` Shared evergreen signal override:
+  topic-level `saw you in a few conversations... hope this is relevant` is
+  allowed for Shared Signal Discovery when evidence-backed; `might be
+  interested` remains blocked because it assumes intent, and `found you in a
+  thread` remains blocked because it exposes sourcing mechanics.
+  Shared Cold Fallback should 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..."`.
@@ -375,15 +400,15 @@ who scraped me."
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, I'm building [X] — [what it does in one plain
 sentence].`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, hope this is relevant if [buyer context] is
-still on your plate.`
+still on your plate.` Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal only.
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, may be off, but if [workflow] is relevant to what
 you're working on, this might be useful.`
-- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope
-this is relevant.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so hope
+this is relevant.` Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal only.
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you in a few conversations around [topic],
-so hope this is relevant.`
+so hope this is relevant.` Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal only.
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, found you in a thread about [topic], so may be
-off, but this seemed relevant.`
+off, but this seemed relevant.` Non-evergreen weak-signal only.
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured
 this was (hopefully) worth sending.` Only for explicit lead-magnet
 comments, replies, or opt-ins.

package/skills/create-evergreen-campaigns/SKILL.md

@@ -43,7 +43,8 @@ In automation or `--yolo` customer-visible setup, use this path before the
 long-form contract below:
 
 1. Resolve the active workspace and explicit sender scopes, then call
-   `setup_evergreen_campaigns({ mode:"plan", yolo:true, postEngagerSenderIds,
+   `setup_evergreen_campaigns({ mode:"plan", yolo:true,
+   handoffMode:"create_campaign_goals", postEngagerSenderIds,
    sharedSenderIds })`. If the user did not name senders but
    `get_campaign_waterfall` returns an active managed evergreen/prod waterfall
    for the workspace, derive exact sender scopes from the waterfall `senderRefs`
@@ -60,12 +61,23 @@ long-form contract below:
    If shell execution is unavailable and no visible/durable thread surface is
    callable, return `blocked: missing_visible_or_durable_lane_worker_runtime`
    before mutation.
-4. Write one compact prompt file per selected lane packet, create the receipt
-   directory, and launch all lane workers in parallel with the literal Codex CLI
-   worker command shape below. The parent does not create campaign shells.
+4. Write one compact prompt file per selected lane using the matching
+   `createCampaignGoals[].goalPrompt`, plus only the receipt path and canonical
+   receipt requirement. Do not paste the full evergreen skill, lane packet,
+   receipt schema, repair history, or verifier checklist into the worker prompt.
+   The worker goal is simple: run `$sellable:create-campaign` normally for that
+   campaign goal, use the evergreen-selected provider/source only as internal
+   sourcing metadata, and write the receipt. The parent does not create campaign
+   shells.
 5. Collect fresh durable receipts, verify with the original planRevision and
    selectedActionIds, then run the idempotency plan and show sample messages.
 
+Critical separation: evergreen owns lane/source selection; `$sellable:create-campaign`
+owns the customer-visible campaign brief and message strategy. Provider names
+such as Signal Discovery, lane keys, source lists, receipt fields, workflow
+mechanics, repair notes, hard-block checklists, and approved-message scaffolding
+must never be pasted into `campaignBrief` or generated customer-facing messages.
+
 Do not keep reasoning, re-reading prompts, or restating this workflow instead of
 dispatching workers. If the first worker cannot be launched after at most one
 short planning pass, return `blocked: worker_dispatch_deadline_exceeded` before
@@ -1220,7 +1232,7 @@ 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 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 intent-assumptive hedges such as "might be interested"; Shared Signal Discovery may use topic-level bridges like "saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so hope this is relevant" or "hope this is relevant if [topic] is part of the plan" when the source evidence supports the topic and the line does not claim engagement or expose source mechanics.
      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
@@ -1240,9 +1252,11 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
      append `curious, are you trying...`, `open to...`, `worth seeing...`, or
      Sellable/product copy to a Post Engagers first message.
 
-   - **Shared Signal Discovery** first-message style: short, casual, references
-     the real observed signal/theme or public conversation. It may mention the
-     engagement source only when the source evidence supports it. Do not say
+   - **Shared Signal Discovery** first-message style: short, casual, starts
+     from the real public business theme or buyer problem supported by the row.
+     Treat Signal Discovery as a lead-source provider only. Do not mention the
+     engagement source, source mechanics, or discovery method in customer-facing
+     copy. Do not say
      "my post" unless the selected source post was actually authored by the
      sending sender. Do not thank the prospect for showing support, reacting,
      commenting, or popping up unless this is a sender-owned Post Engagers lane
@@ -1259,10 +1273,18 @@ 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 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.
+     Use the Dotwork gold-standard shape for Shared Signal Discovery samples
+     when the row supports a topic-level weak signal: "saw you might be
+     interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant", "saw you in a few
+     conversations about [topic], so hope this is relevant", or "saw you in a
+     few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant". These bridges
+     are allowed only when source evidence supports the topic and the line does
+     not claim a reaction, comment, sender-authored post, or other engagement
+     that is not proven. Do not use "found you in a thread" or other raw
+     source/discovery mechanics.
+     Shared Signal Discovery InMail subjects should follow the Dotwork plus-sign
+     A + B + C pattern: concrete topic + buyer outcome + useful artifact/picture,
+     for example "initiatives + business outcomes + one live picture".
      Translate source/tool terms into prospect-facing business language; do not
      put internal workflow
      vocabulary such as "Codex-style workflow", "MCP", "agent workflows",
@@ -1276,7 +1298,7 @@ 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 "might be interested"; "hope this is relevant" and topic-level "saw you in a few conversations ... hope this is relevant" are allowed.
+     Short form: topic-level bridges, including "saw you in a few conversations about/around [topic], so hope this is relevant" and "hope this is relevant if [topic] is part of the plan", are allowed for Shared Signal Discovery when evidence-backed and not engagement-claiming; "might be interested" is not 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",
@@ -1292,9 +1314,9 @@ Message, and verify current-revision sample messages before final completion.
      Sellable/Codex/Claude-Code feature summary
      across prospects. This is a single-message cold path unless the approved
      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" in Shared Cold Fallback.
+     Do not use source-thread hedges such as "hope this is relevant", "might be
+     interested", or "saw you in a few conversations" in Shared Cold Fallback.
+     Start from a concrete role, company, or buyer-problem observation instead.
      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,
@@ -1316,7 +1338,7 @@ 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" is not.
+     Short form: no "hope this is relevant", "might be interested", or "saw you in a few conversations" in Shared Cold Fallback; Shared Signal Discovery has the topic-level conversation-bridge exception above.
      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

package/skills/generate-messages/SKILL.md

@@ -269,7 +269,14 @@ 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` 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.
+- For Shared Signal Discovery, low-certainty topic bridges are allowed when
+  evidence-backed: `saw you in a few conversations about/around [topic], so
+  hope this is relevant` and `hope this is relevant if [topic] is part of the
+  plan`. The line must not claim a reaction, comment, sender-authored post,
+  other engagement that is not proven, or that the buyer `might be interested`.
+- `found you in a thread` is blocked for Shared Signal Discovery because it
+  exposes source mechanics. Shared Cold Fallback should use concrete
+  role/company/problem context instead of source-thread phrasing.
 - 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.
@@ -290,9 +297,12 @@ or a founder self-intro.
 - 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 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 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 must start from buyer context or an
+evidence-backed topic bridge, not assumed intent.
+Short form: Shared Signal Discovery may use `saw you in a few conversations
+about/around [topic], so hope this is relevant` or `hope this is relevant if
+[topic] is part of the plan` when it is topic-level and evidence-backed; do not
+use `saw you might be interested`.
 Short form: shared evergreen copy cannot use `I'm building`.
 Short form: write a concrete signal/problem bridge instead of a rejected relevance hedge.
 
@@ -314,14 +324,14 @@ 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`; `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
+shared evergreen lanes, do not use source-thread disclaimers that expose
+mechanics. For Shared Signal Discovery, `saw you in a few conversations
+about/around [topic], so hope this is relevant` and topic-backed `hope this is
+relevant` bridges are allowed when topic-level and evidence-backed; do not use
+`saw you might be interested`. Use a concrete buyer/problem bridge when that is
+stronger. Low-certainty language like
+"so may be off, but this seemed relevant" can be considered only for
+non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns 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.]`
@@ -482,10 +492,10 @@ artifact.**
 
    Safer shapes:
 
-   - `hope this is relevant if {{signal_topic}} is part of the plan`
+   - `hope this is relevant if {{signal_topic}} is part of the plan` for Shared Signal Discovery or 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 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`
+   - `saw you in a few conversations around {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` for Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only
+   - `saw you in a few conversations about {{signal_topic}}, so may be off, but this seemed relevant` for non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only
    - `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
@@ -547,27 +557,27 @@ artifact.**
    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 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, 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.
+   activity-log-level. `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, Shared Signal Discovery may use
+   `saw you might be interested in {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant`
+   or `saw you in a few conversations about/around {{signal_topic}}, so hope this
+   is relevant` when evidence-backed.
+   Shared Cold Fallback should translate the source 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
    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, `hope this is relevant`
-   is allowed when it stays topic-level and avoids false engagement claims, but
-   `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.
+   this is relevant if...`. For Shared Signal Discovery, topic-backed `hope this
+   is relevant`, `saw you might be interested in...`, and `saw you in a few
+   conversations about/around...` are allowed when topic-level and
+   evidence-backed. For
+   Shared Cold Fallback, use a concrete signal/problem bridge. 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
@@ -1564,11 +1574,11 @@ 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...`. Exception: for Shared Signal Discovery and
-  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.
+  or `if you've ever wanted...`. Exception: for Shared Signal Discovery,
+  topic-backed `hope this is relevant` and `saw you in a few conversations
+  around...` are allowed when topic-level and evidence-backed; do not use `saw
+  you might be interested`. Other shared evergreen lanes should start from the
+  public business theme, row role/company context, or buyer problem.
 - **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
@@ -1870,10 +1880,11 @@ about`, or `clearly relevant` are BLOCKED. Source-y phrases such as
   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. For shared evergreen lanes, skip the `might be
-  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
+  a similarly natural line. For Shared Signal Discovery, topic-backed `hope this
+  is relevant` and `saw you in a few conversations ... hope this is relevant`
+  are allowed when they stay topic-level and avoid false engagement claims; do
+  not use `saw you might be interested`. Other shared evergreen lanes should 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
@@ -2020,9 +2031,9 @@ 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.` 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}}, hope this is relevant if [buyer context] is still on your plate.` For Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only.
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant.` For non-evergreen weak-signal campaigns only.
+- `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 only.
 - `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.
@@ -2284,10 +2295,10 @@ Rules:
 - 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."` 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.
   - `"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."`
+  - `"Saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."` Shared Signal Discovery or non-evergreen weak-signal only.
+  - `"Found you in a thread about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."` Non-evergreen weak-signal only; blocked for shared evergreen lanes.
   - `"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."` Only for explicit lead-magnet comments, replies, or opt-ins.
@@ -2302,12 +2313,13 @@ Rules:
   - `"Saw you engaging with [topic]."`
   - `"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`
-  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.
+- 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 Shared Signal Discovery and non-evergreen LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, source bridges such as `"saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant"` or `"saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant"` can be used 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, topic-backed weak signal-led openers
+  such as `hope this is relevant if [topic] is part of the plan` and `saw you
+  in a few conversations about/around [topic], so hope this is relevant` are
+  allowed when evidence-backed and not engagement-claiming; do not use `might be
+  interested`. 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.
@@ -2319,11 +2331,10 @@ 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`. For shared evergreen lanes, `might be
-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
+off, but this seemed relevant`. For Shared Signal Discovery, topic-backed `hope
+this is relevant` and `saw you in a few conversations ... hope this is relevant`
+are allowed when topic-level and evidence-backed; do not use `might be
+interested`. Other shared evergreen lanes should use a concrete signal/problem bridge. 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

package/skills/research/config.json

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+{
+  "parallelMode": "wide",
+  "agentCount": 6,
+  "maxToolCallsPerAgent": 2,
+  "senderMaxAgents": 2,
+  "senderMaxToolCallsPerAgent": 3,
+  "progressMode": true,
+  "debugMode": true
+}