@sellable/mcp 0.1.76 → 0.1.77

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.76",
+  "version": "0.1.77",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

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

@@ -922,6 +922,13 @@ Required behavior:
 - preserve recurring keep/exclude filter families that show up across campaign
   history: buyer role, wrong-function exclusions, company-type exclusions,
   competitor/vendor exclusions, geography, company size, and active-role status
+- treat right role/function, right seniority/authority, account/channel fit,
+  economic capacity, competitor/vendor exclusion, and active current-role status
+  as table-stakes buyer-quality gates; include geography/market whenever budget,
+  channel adoption, language, compliance, or delivery assumptions depend on it
+- do not turn "shown interest", post engagement, Signals source, recent posting,
+  provider source, or first-send priority into a production filter; those are
+  discovery or messaging context, not proof the lead is qualified
 - use the actual lead sample to identify repeated false positives
 - prefer required keep/exclude rules over a broad scoring stack
 - allow at most one optional/supporting rule when it materially helps later

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/filter-leads.md

@@ -10,6 +10,14 @@ to buying." A lead who may reply but cannot buy, lacks budget, sits at the wrong
 account type, is a vendor/competitor, or is on the wrong side of a marketplace
 is not a good lead.
 
+Source interest is not qualification. A lead who engaged with a post, appeared
+in a Signals search, recently posted on LinkedIn, or "showed interest" in the
+topic has only supplied discovery context. That context can justify the source
+lane, improve pass-rate confidence, or help message generation; it must not
+become a production filter or `leadScoringRubric` item. If the source lane was
+built from topical engagement, the filter should still ask: is this the right
+role, seniority, account type, budget band, market, and non-competitor?
+
 Inputs:
 
 - `brief.md`
@@ -61,6 +69,36 @@ Use the actual sample to answer:
 - whether the filtered leads are economically worth sending to, using the best
   campaign-native proxy available from row data, enrichment, or Googleable facts
 
+## Table-Stakes Qualification Gates
+
+Confirmed production filters should fail closed on buyer quality. The default
+confirmed filter set must explicitly include each table-stakes gate below, or
+`lead-filter.md` must state why a gate is irrelevant for this campaign:
+
+- right role / function: the person owns or directly influences the buyer
+  problem; wrong-function leads fail even when they match the source topic
+- right seniority / authority: the person can approve, pilot, champion, or
+  materially influence adoption; junior ICs fail unless the brief explicitly
+  targets them
+- account and channel fit: the company is the right account type and its buyers
+  are reachable through the chosen channel, such as LinkedIn for LinkedIn
+  outbound campaigns
+- economic capacity / ability to buy: the company has an appropriate budget
+  proxy for the offer, such as headcount, revenue, funding, team size, practice
+  size, location count, department maturity, or existing tooling
+- competitor / vendor / wrong-side exclusion: competitors, adjacent vendors,
+  agencies/service providers, resellers, and marketplace-side conflicts fail
+  unless the brief explicitly targets that group
+- geography / market fit: include the campaign's market, language, region, or
+  tier-country constraint when budget, channel adoption, compliance, or delivery
+  assumptions depend on it
+- active current-role safety: score the person's current role and company, not
+  stale prior roles, advisor blurbs, investor bios, or old engagement context
+
+Do not replace these gates with a "shown interest" or "engaged with relevant
+content" rule. Interest can help find a warmer list, but it does not prove the
+lead is a buyer.
+
 ## Standard Competitor / Vendor Exclusion
 
 Every confirmed filter should include a competitor / vendor / wrong-side
@@ -195,17 +233,21 @@ Rules:
 - do not put source-path mechanics or send-priority hints into
   `leadScoringRubrics`. Examples: recently posted on LinkedIn, came from a
   Signals search, appeared in Sales Nav, was found by Prospeo, first-send wave,
-  or priority cohort. If that signal was already used in the search, mention it
-  in `Pass Rate` or `Recommendation`; if it is useful but not required, keep it
-  as prose under `Optional Supporting Rule`, not as a production rubric.
+  priority cohort, engaged with selected posts, showed interest in the topic,
+  or matched a signal-discovery keyword. If that signal was already used in the
+  search, mention it in `Pass Rate` or `Recommendation`; if it helps messaging,
+  pass it to message generation as source context, not as a production rubric or
+  supporting fit rule.
 - do not put DNC or one-off relationship-safety notes into
   `leadScoringRubrics` unless the sample shows that family is likely to leak at
   meaningful volume and normal DNC/domain suppression will not catch it. Former
   employers, existing customers, investors, partner lists, and "do not contact"
   domains usually belong in `Recommendation` or a DNC note, not in ICP scoring.
 - confirmed `leadScoringRubrics` must protect sales quality, not just surface
-  similarity. They should usually cover:
-  - buyer authority / role fit
+  similarity. They must cover the table-stakes qualification gates unless
+  `lead-filter.md` explicitly justifies why a gate is irrelevant:
+  - right role / function fit
+  - buyer seniority / authority
   - account or company-type fit
   - economic capacity / ability to buy, using a campaign-native proxy such as
     headcount, revenue, funding, practice size, location count, patient volume,
@@ -311,7 +353,7 @@ Recommended rubric grouping:
 - economic capacity / ability to buy
 - geography / size / stage fit, when relevant
 - competitor / vendor / wrong-side / repeated false-positive exclusion
-- one optional buyer-quality signal, at most, only when it changes fit scoring
+- one optional buyer-quality qualifier, at most, only when it changes fit scoring
   rather than send ordering
 
 Rubric-readiness checklist: