@sellable/mcp 0.1.45 → 0.1.46

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
package/package.json CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  {
2
2
  "name": "@sellable/mcp",
3
- "version": "0.1.45",
3
+ "version": "0.1.46",
4
4
  "type": "module",
5
5
  "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
6
6
  "main": "dist/index.js",
@@ -316,39 +316,52 @@ me`, `I’ll paste a different sender profile`, and `Other / custom`.
316
316
  Do not mention internal artifact names, local folders, shell commands, or
317
317
  persistence in this preamble.
318
318
 
319
- - Before asking for brief approval, render the actual readable brief in the chat.
320
- Do not ask the user to approve a one-paragraph direction, a risk note, or a
321
- hidden artifact they cannot inspect. The user must be able to read what they
322
- are approving without opening files. Include these sections:
319
+ - Before asking for brief approval, render a slim approval brief in the chat and
320
+ keep the rich brief in `brief-v1.md` / `brief.md`. Do not ask the user to
321
+ approve a one-paragraph direction, a risk note, or hidden artifact they cannot
322
+ inspect. The chat approval view should be skimmable in under 45 seconds; full
323
+ reasoning, source notes, and robustness stay in the artifacts. Include these
324
+ sections, with 1-2 short lines each:
323
325
 
324
326
  ```text
325
327
  Campaign brief
326
328
 
327
- Who we are targeting:
329
+ Target:
328
330
  ...
329
331
 
330
- Why they should care:
332
+ Core pain:
331
333
  ...
332
334
 
333
335
  Offer / CTA:
334
336
  ...
335
337
 
336
- Proof to use:
338
+ Proof:
337
339
  ...
338
340
 
339
- Lead source hypothesis:
341
+ Lead plan:
340
342
  ...
341
343
 
342
344
  Message angle:
343
345
  ...
344
346
 
345
- Risks / assumptions:
347
+ Risks:
346
348
  ...
347
349
 
348
- What happens after approval:
349
- I’ll find good-fit LinkedIn leads, show you the source decision and sample, then
350
- draft the first message for review before anything goes live.
351
- ```
350
+ After approval:
351
+ I’ll find good-fit LinkedIn leads, show you the source decision and sample, then
352
+ draft the first message for review before anything goes live.
353
+ ```
354
+
355
+ Do not paste the full rich brief into chat for approval unless the user asks.
356
+ Do not show long filesystem paths in the normal approval view. After the slim
357
+ brief, include only:
358
+
359
+ ```text
360
+ Open artifacts: [brief-v1.md] and [brief.md]
361
+ ```
362
+
363
+ If clickable links cannot be created, show one compact fallback line:
364
+ `Trouble opening artifacts? I can show the file paths.`
352
365
 
353
366
  The `Offer / CTA` section must name the useful thing the buyer gets by
354
367
  replying. Do not use vague peer-call framing like `compare notes`, `swap
@@ -57,12 +57,13 @@ turn anchored to that:
57
57
 
58
58
  Approvals only feel safe when the user can see what they are approving. Before
59
59
  any approve/revise question, show the relevant decision in plain language. For a
60
- brief approval, render the brief itself, not just a direction summary.
60
+ brief approval, render the slim approval brief, not just a direction summary.
61
61
 
62
62
  Every approval should also give the user a way to inspect the source artifact.
63
63
  After the readable inline content, include an `Open artifacts:` line with links
64
- or plain paths to the files behind the decision. The artifact links are a backup
65
- for inspection, not a replacement for showing the content in chat.
64
+ to the files behind the decision. Do not show long plain paths in normal chat;
65
+ offer them only as a fallback if links cannot be created. The artifact links are
66
+ a backup for inspection, not a replacement for showing the decision in chat.
66
67
 
67
68
  This applies especially to message approvals. Never ask someone to approve a
68
69
  message they cannot see. Show the subject, tokenized template, a filled sample
@@ -92,7 +93,10 @@ Every customer-facing update should answer one of these:
92
93
  - What will the user see next?
93
94
  - What is protected until approval?
94
95
 
95
- Before a brief approval, the user should see:
96
+ Before a brief approval, the user should see a slim approval brief in chat. The
97
+ rich brief still exists in `brief-v1.md` / `brief.md`; the chat view is the
98
+ decision surface, not the full working memo. It should be skimmable in under 45
99
+ seconds and include:
96
100
 
97
101
  - who we are targeting
98
102
  - why they should care