@sellable/mcp 0.1.63 → 0.1.65

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.63",
+  "version": "0.1.65",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

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

@@ -758,17 +758,55 @@ user-facing lead review. The visible response must include:
 
 - `Lead source decision`
 - `Recommendation`
+- `Primary source and filters` with the concrete source recipe the agent would
+  use if approved. For Sales Nav, name the actual role/title, company-size,
+  geography, industry/account, and activity filters. For Signals, name the
+  selected post set. For Prospeo, name the account/domain and title recipe.
+- `Runner-up sources` with the second-best choice and why it lost. Make the
+  tradeoff explicit, e.g. Sales Nav = clearer scale and fit control, Signals =
+  warmer but smaller/noisier, Prospeo = broader account coverage but weaker
+  LinkedIn intent.
 - `Why it won`
 - `Quick numbers` as bullet points, with one provider/source angle per bullet.
   Each bullet must include raw volume, sampled fit rate as `n/N`, estimated
   good-fit range after cleanup, and expected reply-rate range when available.
+- If Signals was searched or considered, `Signal keyword lanes` as a compact
+  table with keyword lane, timeframe, posts found, and finalist posts reviewed.
+- If Signals was searched or considered, `LinkedIn posts sampled` as a compact
+  table with one row per selected or finalist post: post URL/title,
+  author/topic, age, engagers, sampled engagers, good fits as `n/N`, estimated
+  usable prospects per post, and use/discard decision.
 - `Sample leads` with 3-5 representative `Name — Title, Company` rows
 - `Tradeoff`
 - `Open artifact: lead-review.md`
 
-Keep `## Evidence Snapshot`, selected posts, discarded paths, full sample rows,
-and `lead-sample.json` details in artifacts. Do not show raw filesystem paths
-unless links cannot be created or the user asks.
+The first sentence of the visible decision must make the actual choice clear:
+`I recommend {primary source} using {exact filter/source recipe}. The runner-up
+is {source} because {reason}.` Do not make the user infer the decision from
+numbers alone.
+
+If you ask for lead-source approval, the question and choices must name the
+source decision. Prefer `Approve Sales Nav with founder/CEO filters, or use
+warmer Signals posts instead?` over `Approve this lead source?`. Option labels
+must be concrete, such as `Approve Sales Nav filters`, `Use warmer Signals
+posts`, `Try Prospeo/account search`, and `Revise source`.
+
+Do not skip or discard Signals based only on raw post count or vibes. If
+Signals was considered, show the post-level math in chat first so the user can
+see which LinkedIn posts would be scraped, how many engagers each has, how many
+sampled engagers looked like good fits, and roughly how many usable prospects
+each post can produce. If no engagers could be fetched, say that explicitly and
+lower confidence instead of presenting a precise estimate.
+
+For Signals, default to sampling a few promising posts first rather than trying
+to prove the entire source can scale before the user sees evidence. Pick 3-5
+fresh, high-density posts when available, sample engagers, show fit rate, then
+state how many additional posts could be added/scraped if that first sample is
+good but volume is low.
+
+Keep discarded paths, full sample rows, and `lead-sample.json` details in
+artifacts. Do not show raw filesystem paths unless links cannot be created or
+the user asks.
 
 For supplied profile CSVs and existing lead lists, `lead-review.md` must not
 describe a generic TAM estimate or pretend the rows came from Sales Nav/Prospeo

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

@@ -387,8 +387,12 @@
           "renderInlineSections": [
             "## Lead source decision",
             "Recommendation",
+            "Primary source and filters",
+            "Runner-up sources",
             "Why it won",
             "Quick numbers",
+            "Signal keyword lanes",
+            "LinkedIn posts sampled",
             "Sample leads",
             "Tradeoff"
           ],
@@ -417,12 +421,31 @@
             "expected reply-rate range",
             "confidence note"
           ],
+          "sourceDecisionRequiredFields": [
+            "primary source",
+            "exact Sales Nav filters or source recipe",
+            "runner-up source",
+            "why runner-up lost",
+            "what approval means"
+          ],
+          "signalsInlineTableRequiredFields": [
+            "keyword lane",
+            "timeframe",
+            "posts found",
+            "finalist posts reviewed",
+            "post URL or title",
+            "engagers or engagement count",
+            "sampled engagers",
+            "good fits as n/N",
+            "estimated usable prospects per post",
+            "use or discard decision"
+          ],
           "forbidPercentOnlyFitRates": true,
           "requiredArtifactLinks": ["lead-review.md"],
           "artifactLinkTiming": "before_next_step_or_revision_question",
           "doNotCompressToSummaryOnly": false,
           "doNotRenderArtifactLinksOnly": true,
-          "chatRenderRule": "Show a slim rendered-Markdown decision summary only, never a fenced code block. Use indexed sections and short bullets: recommendation, why it won, Quick numbers with one provider/source angle per bullet, raw volume, sampled fit rate as n/N, estimated good-fit range after cleanup, 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. The first sentence must make the decision explicit: 'I recommend {primary source} using {exact filter/source recipe}. The runner-up is {source} because {reason}.' Use indexed sections and short bullets: recommendation, Primary source and filters, Runner-up sources, why it won, Quick numbers with one provider/source angle per bullet, raw volume, sampled fit rate as n/N, estimated good-fit range after cleanup, expected reply rate range, 3-5 representative sample leads, and one tradeoff. If Signals was searched or considered, include two compact inline Markdown tables before the recommendation is treated as final: Signal keyword lanes with keyword lane, timeframe, posts found, and finalist posts reviewed; and LinkedIn posts sampled with post URL/title, author/topic, age, engagers, sampled engagers, good fits as n/N, estimated usable prospects per post, and use/discard decision. Default to selecting a few promising Signals posts for the first sample instead of trying to prove full Signals scale up front; if the sample is good but volume is low, say how many more posts to add/scrape next. Do not skip or discard Signals based only on raw post count or vibes; show the post-level math first, or explicitly say no engagers could be fetched and lower confidence. Keep 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",
@@ -438,6 +461,7 @@
         },
         {
           "action": "ask_continue_revise_or_confirm_only_if_needed",
+          "approvalQuestionRule": "If asking the user, the question and options must name the concrete decision. Prefer: 'Approve Sales Nav with {filters}, or use warmer Signals instead?' over 'Approve this lead source?' Option labels must name the source choice, such as 'Approve Sales Nav filters', 'Use warmer Signals posts', 'Try Prospeo/account search', and 'Revise source'.",
           "autoContinueWhen": {
             "status": "confirmed",
             "confidenceIn": ["high", "medium"],

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/lead-validation-preview.md

@@ -88,6 +88,12 @@ Use a compact markdown report with these sections:
 
 - Best Path: {provider or provider sequence}
 - Why It Won: {volume + reply-likelihood + fit rationale}
+- Primary Source and Filters: {exact source recipe; include Sales Nav
+  role/title, company-size, geography, industry/account, and activity filters
+  when Sales Nav wins}
+- Runner-Up Sources: {second-best source and why it lost}
+- Approval Meaning: approving this source means {what will be sampled/imported
+  next}
 
 ## Expected LinkedIn Funnel
 
@@ -97,6 +103,28 @@ Use a compact markdown report with these sections:
 - Likely Reply Rate: {range}
 - Estimate Basis: sample-backed | historical | founder-supplied | directional
 
+## Signal Keyword Lanes
+
+Include this section whenever Signals was searched or considered. This table is
+what lets the user see which keyword lanes produced enough fresh post inventory.
+
+| Keyword lane | Timeframe | Posts found | Finalist posts reviewed |
+| ------------ | --------- | ----------- | ----------------------- |
+| ...          | ...       | ...         | ...                     |
+
+## LinkedIn Posts Sampled
+
+Include this section whenever Signals was searched or considered. Do not skip or
+discard Signals based only on raw post count or vibes; show the post-level math
+first. This table is the evidence for how many posts to scrape, including
+estimated usable prospects per post. Default to sampling a few promising posts
+first, then state how many more similar posts to add/scrape if the fit rate is
+good but volume is low.
+
+| Post | Author / topic | Age | Engagers | Sampled engagers | Good fits | Estimated usable prospects per post | Use / discard |
+| ---- | -------------- | --- | -------- | ---------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------- |
+| ...  | ...            | ... | ...      | ...              | x/y       | ...                                 | ...           |
+
 ## Pros
 
 - ...

package/skills/find-leads/SKILL.md

@@ -267,10 +267,12 @@ Use first when the value is in conversation opportunity, competitor engagers, co
 - Favor ICP-fit conversation density over raw post volume.
 - Capture counts, false-positive patterns, and notable examples.
 - If Signals is materially in the running, do not stop at post-level quality alone.
-- Pick enough promising posts to estimate campaign viability. Start with 1-3
-  strong posts for a spot check; if the sampled pass rate is good but the
-  projected pool is below target, expand to 5-8 selected posts before
-  discarding Signals.
+- Pick a few promising posts by default so the user can see real post-level
+  evidence. Start with 3-5 fresh, high-density posts when available; if only
+  1-2 genuinely strong posts exist, sample those and say the lane needs more
+  inventory. If the sampled pass rate is good but the projected pool is below
+  target, recommend adding/scraping more similar posts as the expansion lever
+  before discarding Signals.
 - Sample a representative first page only, scoring the first 25-40 engagers across the chosen posts against a rough yes/no headline rubric or `headlineICPCriteria`.
 - Use headline and display-name cues only for the spot-check sample; do not enrich people during this phase.
 - Base `estimatedReachableLeads` on the sampled engager pass rate, not only on a guessed discount from post themes.
@@ -284,6 +286,14 @@ Use first when the value is in conversation opportunity, competitor engagers, co
   strategy: Signals = warmer, smaller, higher reply upside; Sales Nav/Prospeo =
   more scalable, usually colder or less signal-rich. Recommend the source you
   believe is better, but keep the viable alternate as a real option.
+- When Signals was searched or considered, do not recommend skipping or
+  discarding it until the user can see the post-level math. Show a compact
+  LinkedIn posts table with the keyword lane, selected/finalist post URL or
+  title, post age, engager count, sampled engagers, good fits as `n/N`,
+  estimated usable prospects per post, and use/discard decision. This table is
+  the evidence for how many posts to scrape; raw post count alone is not enough.
+  If the first few posts look good but do not produce enough volume, say how
+  many more posts to add/scrape next instead of treating the lane as failed.
 - If you cannot fetch engagers in the current runtime, say the estimate is inferred and lower confidence.
 - If Signals is too sparse, too noisy, or clearly below campaign scale after the spot check, fall back to `Sales Nav` rather than forcing a weak conversation-led lane.