@sellable/mcp 0.1.85 → 0.1.87

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.85",
+  "version": "0.1.87",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

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

@@ -363,9 +363,9 @@ Validated draft directory:
   `RevOps`, `outbound systems`, or `pipeline architecture` unless they are
   translated into what the user can understand.
 
-  After rendering that brief, ask for brief approval when there is a real
-  strategic choice or the user has not already made the direction obvious. The
-  user-facing choice should be approve/revise language, not "looks good".
+  After rendering that brief, ask for brief approval before lead sourcing in
+  hosted net-new runs. The user-facing choice should be approve/revise language,
+  not "looks good".
   Approval options should refer to what the user just read, e.g. `Approve this
 brief`, `Revise target`, `Revise offer/proof`, and `Other / custom`.
   When the user chose `Find people for me` and the host supports subagents,
@@ -389,13 +389,13 @@ brief`, `Revise target`, `Revise offer/proof`, and `Other / custom`.
   the visible approved brief; if the sidecar is still running, wait quietly or
   finish the write synchronously at that boundary.
 
-- After the brief is approved or auto-confirmed, show the next progress line:
+- After the brief is approved, show the next progress line:
   `Cool. Now I'm going to find people who are both a good fit and active enough
 to be worth a LinkedIn test. I'll compare source paths by expected volume,
 sampled ICP fit, activity/warmth signal, cleanup risk, and tradeoffs. This
 usually takes ~3-5 min, and I'll show you the source decision + sample before
 anything goes live.`
-- After the lead sample/source decision is ready and approved or auto-confirmed,
+- After the lead sample/source decision is ready and approved,
   show the next progress line:
   `Lead source is set. I'll import the first 10-row review batch into the
 campaign table, then use that same batch to tighten the fit filter and draft the
@@ -554,8 +554,14 @@ workstreams`, `in parallel`, or `background` unless parallel branches were
 
 <conditional_gates>
 
-There are two human gates:
+There are four customer-visible gates in the net-new hosted flow:
 
+- `brief-review` asks whether to approve the rendered campaign brief before
+  lead sourcing starts. Do not skip this by inferring approval from setup
+  answers.
+- `lead-review` / source decision asks whether to approve the selected source
+  path and sample before moving into filter/message work. Do not skip this by
+  compressing the source decision into message review.
 - `message-review` is the mandatory pre-import message quality gate. It asks
   only whether to proceed with the selected message (`approve-message`) or run
   one more messaging revision (`revise-messaging`). `approve-message` authorizes
@@ -731,12 +737,12 @@ Required behavior:
   smaller, higher-reply-upside first batch versus Sales Nav/Prospeo for broader
   scale. Recommend the source you believe should win, often Sales Nav when scale
   matters, but keep the smaller Signals lane available as a real option.
-- user-facing source logic must use numbers, not vibes. Never write a percentage
-  such as `73% match` without the numerator, denominator, and sample basis, e.g.
-  `8 of 11 sampled engagers fit the ICP (73%)`. If the sample is small, say it is
-  directional. If an estimate depends on assumptions, show the math: `5 selected
-posts x ~40-80 reachable engagers/post x 25-40% expected fit = ~50-160 likely
-usable leads`.
+- user-facing source logic must use numbers, not vibes. Never write percentages
+  in the source review. Use the numerator, denominator, and sample basis instead,
+  e.g. `8 of 11 sampled engagers fit the ICP`. If the sample is small, say it is
+  directional. If an estimate depends on assumptions, show the math without
+  percentage notation: `5 selected posts x ~40-80 reachable engagers/post x
+roughly 1 in 4 to 2 in 5 expected fit = ~50-160 likely usable leads`.
 - source progress updates should expose the confidence-building numbers as soon
   as they exist: keyword lanes searched, timeframe used, post results by lane,
   finalist posts reviewed, engagers fetched, sampled engagers, sampled fits,
@@ -841,7 +847,7 @@ table with one row per selected or finalist post:
 - raw results found
 - finalist posts or preview rows reviewed
 - sampled people
-- sampled fits, shown as `n/N (%)`
+- sampled fits, shown as `n/N` only; do not include a percentage
 - estimated usable people
 - confidence note (`sample-backed`, `directional`, or `needs more sample`)
 

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

@@ -631,7 +631,7 @@
             "raw results found",
             "finalist posts or preview rows reviewed",
             "sampled people",
-            "sampled fits as n/N (%)",
+            "sampled fits as n/N only; no percentage",
             "estimated usable people",
             "estimated good-fit range after cleanup",
             "confidence note"
@@ -662,7 +662,7 @@
           "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. 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, activity/warmth basis, confidence note, 3-5 representative sample leads, and one tradeoff. Do not forecast connection acceptance rates, reply rates, meetings, pipeline, revenue, or ROI unless the user supplied verified benchmark data for this exact workspace/sender. 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."
+          "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 count as n/N only (no percentages), estimated good-fit range after cleanup, activity/warmth basis, confidence note, 3-5 representative sample leads, and one tradeoff. Do not forecast connection acceptance rates, reply rates, meetings, pipeline, revenue, or ROI unless the user supplied verified benchmark data for this exact workspace/sender. 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 only, 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",