@sellable/mcp 0.1.44 → 0.1.45

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.44",
+  "version": "0.1.45",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

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

@@ -345,10 +345,19 @@ me`, `I’ll paste a different sender profile`, and `Other / custom`.
   Risks / assumptions:
   ...
 
-  What happens after approval:
-  I’ll find good-fit LinkedIn leads, show you the source decision and sample, then
-  draft the first message for review before anything goes live.
-  ```
+	  What happens after approval:
+	  I’ll find good-fit LinkedIn leads, show you the source decision and sample, then
+	  draft the first message for review before anything goes live.
+	  ```
+
+  The `Offer / CTA` section must name the useful thing the buyer gets by
+  replying. Do not use vague peer-call framing like `compare notes`, `swap
+  notes`, `worth chatting`, `pick your brain`, or a bare `15 minute call` unless
+  the user explicitly asks for that. A low-friction CTA is only good when the
+  object is concrete: a checklist, workflow teardown, benchmark, sample, short
+  loom, diagnostic, bottleneck map, relevant proof asset, or a working session
+  with a clear output. If the first draft produces a vague CTA, revise it before
+  showing the brief.
 
   After rendering that brief, ask for brief approval when there is a real
   strategic choice or the user has not already made the direction obvious. The
@@ -495,10 +504,17 @@ commit gate.
 Use customer-facing question wording:
 
 - target prospects: `Who should this campaign target?`
-- main CTA / offer: `What should {{sender_or_company}} offer them?`
+- main CTA / offer: `What useful thing should {{sender_or_company}} offer them?`
 - proof emphasis: `What proof should we lean on?`
 - lead source: `How should we get the people for this campaign?`
 
+Offer shortcuts must be concrete deliverables or outcomes, not meeting wrappers.
+Good examples: `send a short checklist`, `map 2-3 workflow bottlenecks`, `show a
+relevant customer example`, `teardown their public workflow`, `walk through a
+sample output`, or `diagnose where the current process slows down`. Bad
+examples: `compare notes`, `quick intro call`, `worth chatting`, `pick your
+brain`, `learn more`, or `see if it makes sense`.
+
 Ask the lead-source question as the last question in the first strategy batch,
 after buyer, offer/ask, and proof/safety are understood. Frame supplied lists as
 optional, not required. Suggested lead-source shortcuts should include:

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

@@ -103,6 +103,11 @@ Before a brief approval, the user should see:
 - risks / assumptions
 - what happens after approval
 
+The offer / CTA should be useful before it is convenient. Avoid vague
+peer-call asks like "compare notes" unless the user explicitly chose that. The
+buyer should know what they get if they reply: a checklist, teardown, diagnostic,
+sample, benchmark, relevant example, or working session with a concrete output.
+
 For lead-source decisions, confidence comes from concrete counts. Do not say
 "strong sample", "73% match", or "meaningful concentration" without showing the
 sample size and what was counted. Prefer: