@sellable/mcp 0.1.86 → 0.1.87

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
package/package.json CHANGED
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
1
  {
2
2
  "name": "@sellable/mcp",
3
- "version": "0.1.86",
3
+ "version": "0.1.87",
4
4
  "type": "module",
5
5
  "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
6
6
  "main": "dist/index.js",
@@ -737,12 +737,12 @@ Required behavior:
737
737
  smaller, higher-reply-upside first batch versus Sales Nav/Prospeo for broader
738
738
  scale. Recommend the source you believe should win, often Sales Nav when scale
739
739
  matters, but keep the smaller Signals lane available as a real option.
740
- - user-facing source logic must use numbers, not vibes. Never write a percentage
741
- such as `73% match` without the numerator, denominator, and sample basis, e.g.
742
- `8 of 11 sampled engagers fit the ICP (73%)`. If the sample is small, say it is
743
- directional. If an estimate depends on assumptions, show the math: `5 selected
744
- posts x ~40-80 reachable engagers/post x 25-40% expected fit = ~50-160 likely
745
- usable leads`.
740
+ - user-facing source logic must use numbers, not vibes. Never write percentages
741
+ in the source review. Use the numerator, denominator, and sample basis instead,
742
+ e.g. `8 of 11 sampled engagers fit the ICP`. If the sample is small, say it is
743
+ directional. If an estimate depends on assumptions, show the math without
744
+ percentage notation: `5 selected posts x ~40-80 reachable engagers/post x
745
+ roughly 1 in 4 to 2 in 5 expected fit = ~50-160 likely usable leads`.
746
746
  - source progress updates should expose the confidence-building numbers as soon
747
747
  as they exist: keyword lanes searched, timeframe used, post results by lane,
748
748
  finalist posts reviewed, engagers fetched, sampled engagers, sampled fits,
@@ -847,7 +847,7 @@ table with one row per selected or finalist post:
847
847
  - raw results found
848
848
  - finalist posts or preview rows reviewed
849
849
  - sampled people
850
- - sampled fits, shown as `n/N (%)`
850
+ - sampled fits, shown as `n/N` only; do not include a percentage
851
851
  - estimated usable people
852
852
  - confidence note (`sample-backed`, `directional`, or `needs more sample`)
853
853
 
@@ -631,7 +631,7 @@
631
631
  "raw results found",
632
632
  "finalist posts or preview rows reviewed",
633
633
  "sampled people",
634
- "sampled fits as n/N (%)",
634
+ "sampled fits as n/N only; no percentage",
635
635
  "estimated usable people",
636
636
  "estimated good-fit range after cleanup",
637
637
  "confidence note"
@@ -662,7 +662,7 @@
662
662
  "artifactLinkTiming": "before_next_step_or_revision_question",
663
663
  "doNotCompressToSummaryOnly": false,
664
664
  "doNotRenderArtifactLinksOnly": true,
665
- "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."
665
+ "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."
666
666
  },
667
667
  {
668
668
  "action": "render_post_lead_parallel_progress",