# HeyLead — Quality & Satisfaction Assessment (Human User Perspective)

**Purpose:** Estimate quality of received data and experience at each user touchpoint when creating, adjusting, or taking any action with HeyLead tools. Assess how satisfied a human user would be with the product and results.

**Basis:** Real tool outputs and flows from testing (show_status, list_linkedin_accounts, generate_icp, create_campaign, check_replies, suggest_next_action, export_campaign, campaign_report, etc.).

---

## 1. Quality by touchpoint

### 1.1 Setup & account

| Touchpoint | Data quality | User satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|------------|--------------|---------------------------|--------|
| **setup_profile** (first time) | Good | 7/10 | Clear “Sign in at URL”, “paste token”. Missing: one-click link in response, explicit “takes ~2 min”. |
| **list_linkedin_accounts** | High | 8/10 | Clear list: ID, name, “← current”. Actionable next step (switch_account_to, unlink_account). IDs are long and not human-friendly. |
| **switch_account_to** | Good | 7/10 | After fix: “Not connected” is clear. On success: rich summary (name, title, company, posts analyzed). |
| **unlink_account** | High | 8/10 | Short success message; no clutter. |

**Gaps:** Account IDs are opaque (e.g. `Mu6AXy8qQASw30dGDaFR-w`). A “friendly name” or “Account 1, 2, 3” would help. No explicit “You are now using X” in every response that depends on account.

---

### 1.2 ICP (Ideal Customer Profile)

| Touchpoint | Data quality | User satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|------------|--------------|---------------------------|--------|
| **generate_icp** | High | 8.5/10 | Rich output: 2–4 personas, pain points, fears, barriers, LinkedIn targeting (industries, titles, locations, keywords), confidence %. Clear “Next steps” with create_campaign(icp_id=...). Processing time (e.g. 15.6s) sets expectation. |
| **Saved ICPs in show_status** | Good | 7.5/10 | Truncated ID (`b56e48c3...`), name, star rating. Good for “which ICP do I use?”. No “created at” or “last used”. |

**Gaps:** ICP ID is easy to lose in chat; “use ICP 6b635451” in natural language could resolve by name. Confidence % is useful but “evidence” is abstract for a non-technical user.

---

### 1.3 Campaign create & list

| Touchpoint | Data quality | User satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|------------|--------------|---------------------------|--------|
| **create_campaign** (success path) | High | 8/10 | Campaign name, short ID, ICP summary, prospect count, top 5 prospects with fit score (stars). Clear “Ready to start? → generate_and_send, show_status”. First-campaign nudge for company_context is good. |
| **create_campaign** (errors) | Mixed | 4–6/10 | “No LinkedIn account connected on the backend” is clear and actionable. “cannot import name 'generate_icp_result_for_campaign'” is technical and undermines trust. “No prospects found” + “Try: broader keywords, check connection” is good. |
| **show_status** (campaign list) | High | 8/10 | Campaign name, sent/connected/replied counts, quick actions. Free tier usage bar is clear. “6 archived” gives full picture. |

**Gaps:** When create_campaign fails, user doesn’t get a “retry after fixing X” in one line. Campaign IDs are short but still opaque; “Campaign 1: Fintech CTO” would help in chat.

---

### 1.4 Sending & follow-up

| Touchpoint | Data quality | User satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|------------|--------------|---------------------------|--------|
| **generate_and_send** (copilot) | Good | 7.5/10 | Proposed message + approve/skip/edit. User stays in control. |
| **generate_and_send** (no campaign) | High | 8/10 | “No active campaigns. Create one first: create_campaign(...)”. Clear and actionable. |
| **send_followup** | Good | 7/10 | Same pattern as generate_and_send; depends on having connections to follow up with. |
| **approve_outreach** | Good | 7.5/10 | Actions (yes/skip/edit/stop) are clear. Custom message option is good. |

**Gaps:** No “You’ve sent 3 today; 12 left” in the same response. In copilot, “pending approval” state could be clearer (e.g. “1 message waiting for your approval”).

---

### 1.5 Replies & conversation

| Touchpoint | Data quality | User satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|------------|--------------|---------------------------|--------|
| **check_replies** | High | 8/10 | “No new messages found” + tip “Replies usually take 1–3 days”. When there are replies: sentiment and hot leads are valuable. |
| **show_conversation** | Good | 7.5/10 | Full thread with timestamps; good for context. outreach_id required — user may not know it; “show conversation for [prospect name]” would help. |

**Gaps:** Prospect identified by outreach_id; linking to “Campaign X, prospect Y” would feel more human.

---

### 1.6 Analytics & reporting

| Touchpoint | Data quality | User satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|------------|--------------|---------------------------|--------|
| **show_status** (overview) | High | 8/10 | Account health, today/weekly caps, free tier usage, campaign list, saved ICPs, quick actions. “The chat IS the dashboard” is delivered. |
| **campaign_report** | High | 8/10 | Outcomes (won/lost), conversion, active leads. Mode and status clear. |
| **export_campaign** | Good | 7.5/10 | Table format; “no prospects yet” is clear. Format could state “copy-paste to Sheets” explicitly. |
| **compare_campaigns** | Good | 7/10 | When 2+ campaigns: side-by-side metrics. “Need at least 2 campaigns” is clear. |

**Gaps:** No “vs last week” or “trend”. Export format (e.g. CSV) not stated.

---

### 1.7 Control & automation

| Touchpoint | Data quality | User satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|------------|--------------|---------------------------|--------|
| **suggest_next_action** | High | 8.5/10 | Prioritized next step (e.g. “No active campaigns → create one”). Reduces “what do I do?” friction. |
| **scheduler_status** | High | 8/10 | Enabled/disabled clearly; cloud same. Explains what scheduler does and how to enable. |
| **emergency_stop** | High | 8/10 | “No active campaigns to stop” or “All paused” — clear. No ambiguity. |
| **pause_campaign / resume_campaign** | Good | 7.5/10 | Clear success or “campaign not found”. |
| **edit_campaign** | Good | 7/10 | Name, mode, booking link, etc. Fields are clear; which fields are editable could be listed in one line. |

---

## 2. Error and edge-case quality

| Scenario | Quality | Satisfaction (est.) | Notes |
|----------|---------|------------------------|--------|
| Setup not done | High | 8/10 | Friendly “Welcome”, “set up your profile”, next steps. |
| No LinkedIn on backend | Good | 7/10 | “No LinkedIn account connected on the backend” is clear; “run setup again” could be explicit. |
| Import / code error | Low | 3/10 | Raw Python import error damages trust. Must never reach the user; lazy import + “Could not load ICP generator” is the right direction. |
| Rate limited (429) | Good | 7/10 | “Rate limited. Try again in X minutes” with Retry-After is clear. |
| No prospects found | Good | 7/10 | “Try: broader keywords, check connection, different description” is actionable. |

---

## 3. Overall satisfaction (estimated)

- **When everything works:** **8/10**  
  Rich ICP, clear dashboard, actionable next steps, copilot control. Feels like a single “conversational dashboard”.

- **When errors appear:** **5–6/10**  
  Backend/account errors are understandable; code/import errors feel “broken” and reduce trust.

- **Consistency:** **7.5/10**  
  Tone is mostly consistent (short, imperative, emoji used sparingly). Some responses are long (e.g. ICP); could add “Summary in 2 lines” for speed.

- **Discoverability:** **7/10**  
  show_status and suggest_next_action help. New users might still not know “create campaign first, then send”. A one-line “Typical flow: setup → generate_icp → create_campaign → generate_and_send” in setup success would help.

---

## 4. Recommendations to improve satisfaction

1. **Never surface code errors to the user**  
   Catch ImportError and similar; return a single-line message + “Try again or run setup_profile” / “Check ~/.heylead/logs if this persists”.

2. **Human-friendly identifiers**  
   Where possible: “Account: Denys Chumak” instead of only ID; “Campaign: Fintech CTO Outreach” in confirmations; “Prospect: John D. (VP Data at Acme)” in conversation/reply context.

3. **One-line “what to do next” after every action**  
   After create_campaign: “Next: say ‘send messages’ or run generate_and_send.” After check_replies (empty): “Next: run suggest_next_action for the best next step.”

4. **First-time and “no data” states**  
   When campaigns = 0 or prospects = 0, one sentence: “You’re all set. Create your first campaign with create_campaign('your target').” Same for “no replies yet”.

5. **Backend account mismatch**  
   When backend returns “No LinkedIn account connected”, add: “Re-run setup_profile and complete the LinkedIn connection so we can search for prospects.”

6. **Export format**  
   State “Table is copy-paste friendly for Excel/Sheets” or “Use export_campaign to get a table you can paste into a spreadsheet.”

---

## 5. Summary table

| Area | Data quality | Satisfaction (est.) | Main gap |
|------|--------------|----------------------|----------|
| Setup & account | Good–High | 7–8/10 | Opaque IDs; no “you are X” reminder |
| ICP | High | 8–8.5/10 | Resolve ICP by name in chat |
| Campaign create/list | High (when no error) | 8/10 | Error messages (technical vs user-facing) |
| Sending & follow-up | Good | 7–7.5/10 | “Pending approval” and daily cap in same view |
| Replies & conversation | Good–High | 7.5–8/10 | Prospect by name, not only ID |
| Analytics & reporting | High | 7.5–8/10 | Trend and export format |
| Control & automation | High | 7.5–8.5/10 | List editable fields in one line |
| Errors & edges | Mixed | 3–8/10 | No code errors; clearer “retry after X” |

**Overall:** A human user is likely **satisfied (7–8/10)** when the flow works and **frustrated (3–5/10)** when they hit a technical or backend-account error. Improving error handling and adding small “what’s next” and human-friendly labels would raise perceived quality and satisfaction.
