3.6 KiB
Beeper Copilot UI reference captures
Source: https://beeper-copilot-lp.vercel.app/
Captured on 2026-09-28 with Chromium through agent-browser. These are screenshots of the public landing page and its animated UI demonstrations, not screenshots of a logged-in production application. Displayed people and conversations come from that page, not this user's Beeper account. Animations can show different stages between captures. No page contents were modified to create the images.
| Capture | Contents |
|---|---|
| Desktop three-pane | Conversation list, conversation body/composer, person context; 1440 × 720 viewport |
| Reply review | Three reply styles, selected candidate, approval button; 1440 × 1080 |
| CRM and evidence | Person panel, evidence-backed fields, people board; 1440 × 1080 |
| Features | Unified inbox, ghost completion, review and reply suggestions; 1440 × 1080 |
| Feedback | Candidate comparison and writing-rule feedback; 1440 × 1080 |
| Desktop hero | Landing-page introduction and part of the demo; 1440 × 1080 |
| Desktop full page | Entire landing page at 1440px wide |
| Mobile hero | Landing-page layout at 390 × 844 |
| Mobile conversation | The demo's compressed conversation layout at 390 × 844 |
Patterns to reuse
- Three coordinated panes: compact list, a dominant conversation, and persistent person context. In this app the right pane should show Codex-published life context, source references and pending user corrections.
- Compact network badges on identities and messages. Keep original conversation identity available even when presenting a person across networks.
- A reply review sits near the conversation and composer. Candidate selection, editing and confirmation remain visible steps; approval is distinct from generating or inserting a suggestion.
- Evidence chips next to contextual statements provide a path back to messages or the published life source reference.
- Suggested actions include their reason and can populate the appropriate editor. The app can render externally produced suggestions without inference.
The LP's dense right panel and desktop three-pane arrangement are useful references. Its mobile demo squeezes the columns and is not a good mobile navigation model for this app: use list → conversation with an accessible context panel instead. The LP's relationship-phase labels, coverage scores and confidence percentages are demo product choices, not requirements for this personal CRM.
For Home, borrow the contextual presentation inside a reply activity rather than embedding the full inbox. Weight logging needs a numeric input; a routine needs steps; an optional task needs a simple completion control. These can coexist in one activity list without forcing every activity into a chat layout.
See external agent publishing for the proposed producer/consumer boundary and typed activity contract.