docs: add Phase 30 launch plan, SEO keywords, and Cognee research
- Phase 30 launch plan (chrome-devtools-mcp-seo-brief.md, blog post) - SEO keyword brief (keywords.md with P0/P1 locked keywords) - Cognee workspace isolation eval + architecture deep-dive Co-Authored-By: PM <pm@agents.moleculesai.app>
This commit is contained in:
parent
a5a495c804
commit
9cc48a99fb
69
docs/marketing/plans/phase-30-launch-plan.md
Normal file
69
docs/marketing/plans/phase-30-launch-plan.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
|
||||
# Phase 30 Launch Plan — Chrome DevTools MCP SEO Campaign
|
||||
|
||||
**Owner:** Marketing Lead
|
||||
**Status:** Draft — CTAs + GA date TBD (blocked on engineering)
|
||||
**Last updated:** 2026-04-20
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Campaign Status
|
||||
|
||||
| Deliverable | Owner | Status |
|
||||
|-------------|-------|--------|
|
||||
| SEO brief | Marketing Lead | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Blog post | Marketing Lead | ✅ Complete |
|
||||
| Keywords (P0/P1) | Marketing Lead | ✅ Confirmed |
|
||||
| Keywords doc | Orchestrator | ✅ Created |
|
||||
| Social distribution | Social Media Brand / Content Marketer | ⏳ Pending (both busy) |
|
||||
| CTA links | Engineering | ⏳ TBD |
|
||||
| GA date | Engineering | ⏳ TBD |
|
||||
| SEO indexing | SEO Analyst | ⚠️ Unverified |
|
||||
| Launch announcement | Content Marketer | ⏳ Pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Confirmed Content
|
||||
|
||||
- **Brief:** `docs/marketing/briefs/2026-04-20-chrome-devtools-mcp-seo-brief.md`
|
||||
- **Blog post:** `docs/marketing/blog/2026-04-20-how-to-add-browser-automation-to-ai-agents-with-mcp.md`
|
||||
- **P0 keywords:** "MCP browser automation", "Chrome DevTools MCP"
|
||||
- **P1 keywords:** "AI agent browser control", "MCP protocol tutorial"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Pending Actions
|
||||
|
||||
### CTA Links + GA Date
|
||||
**Blocked on:** Engineering
|
||||
**Action required:** Engineering to provide:
|
||||
1. Final CTA URL for the blog post (e.g. demo, signup, docs link)
|
||||
2. GA date for the Chrome DevTools MCP feature
|
||||
|
||||
**If blocked:** Marketing Lead to escalate to PM for GA timeline.
|
||||
|
||||
### SEO Indexing
|
||||
**Owner:** SEO Analyst
|
||||
**Status:** Unverified — SEO Analyst reported completion but files not confirmed real.
|
||||
**Action required:** Once SEO Analyst confirms files, verify in Google Search Console that P0 keywords are indexed. Do not mark indexing complete until confirmed.
|
||||
|
||||
### Social Distribution
|
||||
**Owner:** Social Media Brand (interim) / Content Marketer (primary)
|
||||
**Action required:** Draft social posts using P0 keywords. Route to blog post CTA once engineering provides link.
|
||||
|
||||
### Launch Announcement
|
||||
**Owner:** Content Marketer
|
||||
**Action required:** Write and schedule announcement for launch day. Use confirmed keywords and blog post as source.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
1. **GA date:** Is there a confirmed ship date for Chrome DevTools MCP?
|
||||
2. **CTA link:** What is the primary conversion target for the blog post?
|
||||
3. **SEO Analyst output:** Where did their deliverables actually land?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Checkpoint
|
||||
|
||||
Review pending items in next marketing lead sync. Escalate blockers to PM if engineering CTAs + GA date are not provided within 24 hours.
|
||||
35
docs/marketing/seo/keywords.md
Normal file
35
docs/marketing/seo/keywords.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
# Chrome DevTools MCP — SEO Keyword Brief
|
||||
|
||||
**Campaign:** Phase 30 Chrome DevTools MCP SEO launch
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-04-20
|
||||
**Owner:** Marketing Lead + SEO Analyst
|
||||
**Status:** Keywords confirmed — content live
|
||||
|
||||
## Primary Keywords (P0)
|
||||
|
||||
| Keyword | Intent | Target |
|
||||
|---------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| `MCP browser automation` | Informational / Tutorial | Blog post H1 + first 100 words |
|
||||
| `Chrome DevTools MCP` | Informational / Product | Blog post H2 + meta description |
|
||||
|
||||
## Secondary Keywords (P1)
|
||||
|
||||
| Keyword | Intent | Target |
|
||||
|---------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| `AI agent browser control` | Informational | Blog body sections |
|
||||
| `MCP protocol tutorial` | Tutorial / How-to | Blog post anchor sections |
|
||||
|
||||
## Keyword Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
- **P0 keywords** are locked. Both must appear in the blog post title, H1, and first 100 words.
|
||||
- **P1 keywords** should appear naturally in body content and subheadings.
|
||||
- Avoid generic marketing language in headings — this is a developer audience.
|
||||
|
||||
## Confirmed Deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
- **Brief:** `docs/marketing/briefs/2026-04-20-chrome-devtools-mcp-seo-brief.md`
|
||||
- **Blog post:** `docs/marketing/blog/2026-04-20-how-to-add-browser-automation-to-ai-agents-with-mcp.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## SEO Analyst Note
|
||||
|
||||
SEO Analyst reported 6 campaign actions complete. File paths `docs/blog/...` and `docs/marketing/seo/keywords.md` — the latter is now confirmed real (this file). The `docs/blog/...` path has been superseded by the confirmed `docs/marketing/blog/...` location. All other SEO Analyst deliverables should be verified before treating as complete.
|
||||
65
docs/research/cognee-architecture-deep-dive.md
Normal file
65
docs/research/cognee-architecture-deep-dive.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
||||
# Cognee Architecture Deep-Dive — Workspace Isolation
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-04-20
|
||||
**Issue:** Molecule-AI/molecule-core#1146
|
||||
**Research by:** Research Lead
|
||||
**Status:** Complete
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Cognee has **dataset-level isolation primitives** but **no storage-layer enforcement** and **no native `workspace_id` support** in its MCP tool interface. Cross-workspace isolation is caller-controlled, not enforced by the storage layer.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Isolation Layer Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
| Layer | Mechanism | Enforced? | Risk |
|
||||
|-------|-----------|-----------|------|
|
||||
| Storage (Postgres) | No RLS, no schema namespacing | ❌ None | High |
|
||||
| App — dataset | `dataset_name` passed per tool call | ⚠️ Caller-controlled | Medium |
|
||||
| App — user | `get_default_user()` internal resolver only | ⚠️ Soft | Medium |
|
||||
| MCP `workspace_id` param | Not present in cognee-mcp interface | ❌ N/A | High |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Findings
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Storage layer:** No Postgres row-level security (RLS), no schema-level tenant separation. Any admin with DB access can read any tenant's data.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Dataset isolation:** Cognee uses `dataset_name` as a logical namespace, but it's passed by the caller per tool call — not enforced server-side. A misconfigured or malicious caller could read/write across datasets.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **MCP interface:** `cognee-mcp` does not expose `workspace_id` as a first-class parameter. Workspaces would need to be mapped to dataset names externally.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **User isolation:** `get_default_user()` resolves users internally without verifiable enforcement at the data layer.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Migration Implications
|
||||
|
||||
Adopting Cognee as the memory substrate requires an **auth bridge**:
|
||||
|
||||
- The bridge wraps cognee-mcp and injects `workspace_id` → `dataset_name` mapping
|
||||
- All tool calls are routed through the bridge, which enforces tenant context
|
||||
- Estimated effort: **~100–200 LOC** for the MCP proxy wrapper
|
||||
- This is a pragmatic path — the bridge provides the isolation Cognee's storage layer lacks
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
**Attempt the auth bridge prototype first (1–2 days of engineering):**
|
||||
1. Build MCP proxy that maps workspace_id to dataset_name on each call
|
||||
2. Validate that cross-workspace calls are correctly rejected
|
||||
3. If clean → adopt Cognee for Phase 9
|
||||
4. If complex → build native with storage-layer enforcement
|
||||
|
||||
**Do not proceed with Phase 9 proprietary memory investment until bridge prototype is evaluated.**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Sources
|
||||
|
||||
- Cognee GitHub: https://github.com/topoteretes/cognee
|
||||
- Preliminary eval: /workspace/repo/docs/research/cognee-isolation-eval.md
|
||||
37
docs/research/cognee-isolation-eval.md
Normal file
37
docs/research/cognee-isolation-eval.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
# Cognee Workspace Isolation Evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-04-20
|
||||
**Issue:** Molecule-AI/molecule-core#1146
|
||||
**Status:** Preliminary — needs deeper architecture review
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Cognee (Apache-2.0, by Topoteretes UG) is an open-source AI memory engine with a shipped MCP component. It has direct overlap with Molecule AI's Phase 9 hierarchical memory architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
## Workspace Isolation Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
**Signal: Partial/Positive**
|
||||
|
||||
Cognee's GitHub README explicitly lists "agentic user/tenant isolation, traceability, OTEL collector, audit traits" as a core architectural feature.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a positive signal. However:
|
||||
- The README mention does not specify the technical mechanism (namespace-level separation? separate vector DB instances per tenant? row-level security in a shared DB?)
|
||||
- The cognee-mcp MCP component's handling of multi-workspace contexts is not documented in the surface-level readme
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict:** Cognee claims tenant isolation. Further due diligence required before treating this as confirmed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Next Steps
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Deep-dive into cognee architecture docs** — check if isolation is enforced at the storage layer (separate DB/collection per workspace), application layer (row-level), or both
|
||||
2. **Test cognee-mcp with a multi-workspace scenario** — the MCP tool interface should reveal whether workspace_id is a first-class parameter
|
||||
3. **Check cognee's GitHub issues/discussions** — any community reports of cross-tenant data leakage?
|
||||
4. **Evaluate migration path** — if Cognee is adopted, what's involved in migrating existing Phase 9 work?
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
Proceed with Phase 9 build-vs-buy review. Cognee is a credible candidate — isolation is claimed but mechanism needs verification. The Phase 9 halt stands until this is resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sources
|
||||
|
||||
- https://github.com/topoteretes/cognee (README, 2026-04-20)
|
||||
- /workspace/repo/research/cognee-memo.md
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user