@sellable/mcp 0.1.64 → 0.1.65

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.64",
+  "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

@@ -758,6 +758,14 @@ 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
@@ -772,6 +780,17 @@ user-facing lead review. The visible response must include:
 - `Tradeoff`
 - `Open artifact: lead-review.md`
 
+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
@@ -779,6 +798,12 @@ 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.

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

@@ -387,6 +387,8 @@
           "renderInlineSections": [
             "## Lead source decision",
             "Recommendation",
+            "Primary source and filters",
+            "Runner-up sources",
             "Why it won",
             "Quick numbers",
             "Signal keyword lanes",
@@ -419,6 +421,13 @@
             "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",
@@ -436,7 +445,7 @@
           "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. 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. 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."
+          "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",
@@ -452,6 +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
 
@@ -111,7 +117,9 @@ what lets the user see which keyword lanes produced enough fresh post inventory.
 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.
+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 |
 | ---- | -------------- | --- | -------- | ---------------- | --------- | ----------------------------------- | ------------- |

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.
@@ -290,6 +292,8 @@ Use first when the value is in conversation opportunity, competitor engagers, co
   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.