@sellable/mcp 0.1.50 → 0.1.52

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.50",
+  "version": "0.1.52",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

package/skills/create-campaign/SKILL.md

@@ -98,6 +98,13 @@ fits as n/N, estimated good-fit range after cleanup, expected reply-rate range,
 and confidence basis. Never show a percent like "73% match" without the
 numerator, denominator, and sample basis.
 
+Use rendered Markdown for any user review surface, not fenced code blocks. This
+includes campaign brief, lead source, lead filter, message review, and final
+approval. Keep lines short, use indexed section labels and bullets, and
+translate internal sourcing terms into plain language. For example, explain
+"signal discovery" as "looking for LinkedIn activity from people already
+talking about this problem."
+
 Every approval gate must include artifact access after the readable inline
 content. Show an `Open artifact:` line with the one key clickable markdown link
 for that stage. Do not show raw filesystem paths unless links cannot be created

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

@@ -141,6 +141,29 @@ Validated draft directory:
   approval/review, lead-filter review, message review, and final approval
   packet. Do not use the link as a substitute for rendering the decision in
   chat; links are for deeper inspection.
+- Any time the user is reviewing a list or decision, use rendered Markdown with
+  short indexed sections and bullets. Do not use label-plus-paragraph blocks
+  like `Key numbers:` followed by one long paragraph. Do not use fenced code
+  blocks for review surfaces. The readable chat surface should look like:
+
+  ```text
+  ## Lead source decision
+
+  **1. Chosen source**
+  - Signals, with a strict filter
+
+  **2. Quick numbers**
+  - **Signals:** 491 posts reviewed. 9/40 sampled engagers fit. Estimate:
+    180-260 usable leads.
+  - **Sales Nav:** 2,598 active profiles. Preview was broader and noisier.
+
+  **3. Sample leads**
+  - Joyjit Ghosh — Co-Founder, Prospectee.io
+  - Ashish Rai — Founder & CEO, ReachHQ
+
+  **4. Tradeoff**
+  - More context, but the filter needs to cut consultants and creators.
+  ```
 - Do not treat the active Sellable workspace as the campaign subject. The
   workspace only tells you where the campaign will be saved. Before buyer, CTA,
   proof, or source questions, identify two things:
@@ -318,39 +341,63 @@ me`, `I’ll paste a different sender profile`, and `Other / custom`.
   persistence in this preamble.
 
 - Before asking for brief approval, render a slim approval brief in the chat and
-  keep the rich current brief in `brief.md`. Do not ask the user to
+  keep the rich current brief in `brief.md`. Use rendered Markdown directly:
+  `##` heading, bold field labels, numbered section labels, and short bullets.
+  Do not wrap the user-facing approval view in a fenced code block because that
+  creates horizontal scrolling in Claude Code and Codex. Do not ask the user to
   approve a one-paragraph direction, a risk note, or hidden artifact they cannot
   inspect. The chat approval view should be skimmable in under 45 seconds; full
   reasoning, source notes, and robustness stay in the artifacts. Include these
-  sections, with 1-2 short lines each:
+  sections, with short wrapped lines:
 
   ```text
-  Campaign brief
+  ## Campaign brief
+
+  **Decision:** ... (one sentence)
+
+  **1. Target**
+  - ... (include concrete role/title names, not just a broad persona)
+  - ...
 
-  Target:
-  ... (include concrete role/title names, not just a broad persona)
+  **2. Pain**
+  - ...
+  - ...
 
-  Core pain:
-  ...
+  **3. Offer**
+  - ...
+  - ...
 
-  Offer / CTA:
-  ...
+  **4. Proof**
+  - ...
+  - ...
 
-  Proof:
-  ...
+  **5. Lead plan**
+  I’ll look for people who are already showing signs this problem matters:
+  - people talking about ...
+  - people with roles like ...
+  - companies likely to feel ...
 
-  Lead plan:
-  ...
+  If that pool is too small or noisy, I’ll switch to broader LinkedIn title and
+  company filters.
 
-  Message angle:
-  ...
+  **6. Risks**
+  - ...
+  - ...
 
-  Risks:
-  ...
+  **7. After approval**
+  I’ll find good-fit LinkedIn leads, show the source decision and sample, then
+  draft the first message for review. Nothing goes live without approval.
+  ```
+
+  In the `Lead plan` section, do not expose internal provider shorthand as the
+  explanation. Avoid bare phrases like `signal discovery`, `founder-led GTM`,
+  `RevOps`, `outbound systems`, or `pipeline architecture` unless they are
+  translated into what the user can understand. For example:
 
-  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.
+  ```text
+  I’ll start by looking for LinkedIn activity from founders and revenue leaders
+  who are talking about pipeline problems, CRM handoffs, outbound tooling, or
+  messy sales processes.
   ```
 
   Do not paste the full rich brief into chat for approval unless the user asks.
@@ -714,7 +761,9 @@ range, and estimate basis. If exact performance data is unavailable, use a
 directional range and label it `directional`, not definitive.
 
 When showing `lead-review.md` to the user, render a slim decision summary in
-chat, not the full evidence table. The visible response must include:
+chat, not the full evidence table. Use rendered Markdown directly with short
+bullet lines; do not use fenced code blocks for the user-facing lead review.
+The visible response must include:
 
 - `Lead source decision`
 - `Chosen source`
@@ -733,13 +782,13 @@ unless links cannot be created or the user asks.
 Use this chat shape for the quick-number bullets:
 
 ```text
-Quick numbers:
-- Signals / AI outbound posts: 249 posts found. Sampled 40 engagers; 18/40
+**1. Quick numbers**
+- **Signals / AI outbound posts:** 249 posts found. Sampled 40 engagers; 18/40
   looked usable. Estimate: 100-250 good warm fits. Expected reply: 6-12%.
-- Sales Nav / active SaaS founders + GTM leaders: 27,454 active profiles before
+- **Sales Nav / active SaaS founders + GTM leaders:** 27,454 active profiles before
   filtering. First 25 had 12 strong/probable fits. Estimate: 300-800 good fits
   after title/company cleanup. Expected reply: 4-9%.
-- Prospeo / domain-filtered agencies: 1,000+ likely contacts if we need scale,
+- **Prospeo / domain-filtered agencies:** 1,000+ likely contacts if we need scale,
   but weaker LinkedIn activity. Estimate: 500-1,000 contacts. Expected reply:
   2-5%.
 ```
@@ -828,22 +877,24 @@ Required behavior:
 - `Implementation Details`
 
 When showing the filter result in chat, render a slim summary before moving to
-message review:
+message review. Use rendered Markdown, indexed sections, and short bullets:
 
 ```text
-Lead filter
+## Lead filter
 
-Keep:
-{1-3 lines}
+**1. Keep**
+- {role/title family}
+- {company/context family}
 
-Exclude:
-{1-3 lines}
+**2. Exclude**
+- {false-positive family}
+- {false-positive family}
 
-Why:
-{sample-backed reason}
+**3. Why**
+- {sample-backed reason}
 
-Expected impact:
-{1 line}
+**4. Expected impact**
+- {1 line}
 
 Open artifact: lead-filter.md
 ```
@@ -891,7 +942,8 @@ Continue chunked-read until `hasMore=false`. Treat all chunks as one prompt load
 Do NOT proceed to Step 4 (message review gate) without loading and following the full generate-messages workflow. `message-validation.md` must prove the full workflow ran (all required sections present + raw sendable Selected Winner) before `message-review.md` can recommend `approve-message`. If the message review or approval packet is ready but the generate-messages prompt was not retrieved in this run, route back to message-generation instead of asking the commit gate.
 
 When showing message review in chat, lead with one fully filled sample message,
-not the tokenized template. The visible response must include:
+not the tokenized template. Use rendered Markdown, indexed sections, and short
+bullets around the sample. The visible response must include:
 
 - `Message review`
 - `Subject`
@@ -908,7 +960,8 @@ artifacts.
 ## Step 4: Final Approval Packet
 
 When showing the final approval packet, render a slim "ready to create" summary
-in chat. The visible response must include:
+in chat. Use rendered Markdown, indexed sections, and short bullets. The visible
+response must include:
 
 - `Ready to create campaign`
 - `Campaign`

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

@@ -58,6 +58,10 @@ turn anchored to that:
 Approvals only feel safe when the user can see what they are approving. Before
 any approve/revise question, show the relevant decision in plain language. For a
 brief approval, render the slim approval brief, not just a direction summary.
+Any list the user is expected to review should be rendered Markdown with short
+indexed sections and bullets. Avoid label-plus-paragraph blocks like
+`Key numbers:` followed by a dense paragraph, and never use fenced code blocks
+for review surfaces.
 
 Every approval should also give the user a way to inspect the source artifact.
 After the readable inline content, include an `Open artifact:` line with the one
@@ -122,17 +126,17 @@ sampled engagers; 31 looked like real ICP fits, so I’d treat this as direction
 usable people if the remaining engagers behave similarly.
 ```
 
-Lead review chat should be short and numeric. It must include bullet-pointed
-provider/source-angle estimates, one bullet per angle, so the sourcing logic is
-easy to scan:
+Lead review chat should be short and numeric. It must use rendered Markdown,
+not a fenced code block, and include bullet-pointed provider/source-angle
+estimates, one bullet per angle, so the sourcing logic is easy to scan:
 
 ```text
-Quick numbers:
-- Signals / AI outbound posts: 249 posts found. Sampled 40 engagers; 18/40
+**1. Quick numbers**
+- **Signals / AI outbound posts:** 249 posts found. Sampled 40 engagers; 18/40
   looked usable. Estimate: 100-250 good warm fits.
-- Sales Nav / active SaaS founders + GTM leaders: 27,454 active profiles before
+- **Sales Nav / active SaaS founders + GTM leaders:** 27,454 active profiles before
   filtering. First 25 had 12 strong/probable fits. Estimate: 300-800 good fits.
-- Sales Nav / agencies + GTM consultants: smaller but higher intent. Estimate:
+- **Sales Nav / agencies + GTM consultants:** Smaller but higher intent. Estimate:
   150-400 good fits.
 ```
 
@@ -140,14 +144,18 @@ Then show chosen source, why it won, expected connection acceptance, expected
 reply rate, 3-5 sample leads, and one tradeoff. Full tables belong in
 `lead-review.md`.
 
-Lead filter chat should always show what changed: keep, exclude, why, expected
-impact, and `Open artifact: lead-filter.md`.
+Lead filter chat should always use indexed rendered Markdown and show what
+changed: keep, exclude, why, expected impact, and
+`Open artifact: lead-filter.md`.
 
-Final approval chat should be a ready-to-create summary: campaign, target with
-concrete role/title names, lead source, filter, one filled sample message, what
-approval creates, and the safety note that nothing sends live until greenlight.
-Do not include sequence/settings in final approval; that belongs after campaign
-creation.
+Message review chat should use indexed rendered Markdown, show one fully filled
+sample message without tokens, and keep tokenized templates in the artifact.
+
+Final approval chat should use indexed rendered Markdown for a ready-to-create
+summary: campaign, target with concrete role/title names, lead source, filter,
+one filled sample message, what approval creates, and the safety note that
+nothing sends live until greenlight. Do not include sequence/settings in final
+approval; that belongs after campaign creation.
 
 Avoid:
 

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/core/flow.v2.json

@@ -227,6 +227,7 @@
           "minimumVisibleBriefDetail": "slim_approval_brief_before_question",
           "requiredArtifactLinks": ["brief.md"],
           "artifactLinkTiming": "before_approval_question",
+          "chatRenderRule": "Show the brief as rendered Markdown, never as a fenced code block. Use ## Campaign brief, a one-sentence bold Decision, indexed bold section labels, and short bullets. In Lead plan, translate provider shorthand into plain user-facing language about who will be searched for and why; do not rely on bare terms like signal discovery, RevOps, outbound systems, or pipeline architecture.",
           "avoidQuestionWhenOnlyUsefulAnswerIs": "looks good"
         },
         {
@@ -400,7 +401,7 @@
           "forbidPercentOnlyFitRates": true,
           "requiredArtifactLinks": ["lead-review.md"],
           "artifactLinkTiming": "before_next_step_or_revision_question",
-          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim decision summary only: chosen source, why it won, bullet-pointed Quick numbers with one provider/source angle per bullet, raw volume, sampled fit rate as n/N, estimated good-fit range after cleanup, expected connection acceptance range, expected reply rate range, 3-5 representative sample leads, and one tradeoff. Keep evidence tables, selected posts, discarded paths, full sample rows, and lead-sample.json details in lead-review.md. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created."
+          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim rendered-Markdown decision summary only, never a fenced code block. Use indexed sections and short bullets: chosen source, why it won, bullet-pointed Quick numbers with one provider/source angle per bullet, raw volume, sampled fit rate as n/N, estimated good-fit range after cleanup, expected connection acceptance range, expected reply rate range, 3-5 representative sample leads, and one tradeoff. Keep evidence tables, selected posts, discarded paths, full sample rows, and lead-sample.json details in lead-review.md. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created."
         },
         {
           "action": "render_post_lead_parallel_progress",
@@ -482,7 +483,7 @@
             "Expected impact"
           ],
           "requiredArtifactLinks": ["lead-filter.md"],
-          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim filter summary before message review: who we keep, who we exclude, sample-backed reason, and expected impact. Keep production rubric fields and rubric.json details in lead-filter.md/rubric.json. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created."
+          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim rendered-Markdown filter summary before message review, never a fenced code block. Use ## Lead filter plus indexed sections and short bullets for who we keep, who we exclude, sample-backed reason, and expected impact. Keep production rubric fields and rubric.json details in lead-filter.md/rubric.json. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created."
         },
         {
           "action": "ask_revise_only_if_filter_is_not_confirmed",
@@ -651,7 +652,7 @@
             "Question: approve-message or revise-messaging?",
             "Recommendation:"
           ],
-          "chatRenderRule": "Show one fully filled sample message with no {{tokens}} before asking for approval. Include subject, sample message, why it should work, one concern or None, recommendation, and Open artifact: message-review.md. Keep tokenized template, token fill basis, rendered examples, good/bad token fill examples, validation notes, and message-validation.md details in artifacts. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created.",
+          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim rendered-Markdown message review, never a fenced code block. Use ## Message review plus indexed sections and short bullets. Show one fully filled sample message with no {{tokens}} before asking for approval. Include subject, sample message, why it should work, one concern or None, recommendation, and Open artifact: message-review.md. Keep tokenized template, token fill basis, rendered examples, good/bad token fill examples, validation notes, and message-validation.md details in artifacts. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created.",
           "allowedRecommendations": ["approve-message", "revise-messaging"],
           "judgeAgainst": [
             "generate-messages rules",
@@ -775,7 +776,7 @@
           "minimumVisibleDetail": "slim_final_approval_summary",
           "requiredArtifactLinks": ["approval-packet.md"],
           "artifactLinkTiming": "before_commit_gate_question",
-          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim final approval packet only. Include target with concrete role/title names, lead source with one key metric, filter summary, one fully filled sample message with no {{tokens}}, what approval creates, and safety note that nothing sends live until the review/greenlight step. Keep tokenized templates, evidence tables, rubrics, and validation details in approval-packet.md. Do not show sequence/settings in final approval; that comes after campaign creation. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created.",
+          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim rendered-Markdown final approval packet only, never a fenced code block. Use ## Ready to create campaign plus indexed sections and short bullets. Include target with concrete role/title names, lead source with one key metric, filter summary, one fully filled sample message with no {{tokens}}, what approval creates, and safety note that nothing sends live until the review/greenlight step. Keep tokenized templates, evidence tables, rubrics, and validation details in approval-packet.md. Do not show sequence/settings in final approval; that comes after campaign creation. Do not show plain filesystem paths unless links cannot be created.",
           "userFacing": true,
           "doNotUseWords": ["anchor", "validation anchor", "lane"]
         },
@@ -874,7 +875,7 @@
             "what approval creates"
           ],
           "requiredArtifactLinks": ["approval-packet.md"],
-          "chatRenderRule": "Same slim approval packet as approval-packet. Include target with concrete role/title names and one fully filled sample message without tokens. Do not include sequence/settings. Do not repeat tokenized template or long evidence tables in chat.",
+          "chatRenderRule": "Same slim rendered-Markdown approval packet as approval-packet, never a fenced code block. Use indexed sections and short bullets. Include target with concrete role/title names and one fully filled sample message without tokens. Do not include sequence/settings. Do not repeat tokenized template or long evidence tables in chat.",
           "artifactLinkTiming": "same_turn_before_commit_question"
         },
         {

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/validation-criteria.md

@@ -133,7 +133,9 @@ directional range and label it `directional`, not definitive.
 
 `## Evidence Snapshot` and the visible lead-review chat must break estimates out
 by provider/source angle. Do not collapse everything into one raw count. Use
-one row or bullet per angle, for example:
+one row or bullet per angle. The visible chat version should be rendered
+Markdown with indexed sections and short bullets, not a fenced code block. For
+example:
 
 - `Signals / AI outbound posts`
 - `Sales Nav / active SaaS founders + GTM leaders`