results-analysis
Skill661 starsChanged 37 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when analyzing experimental results, validating comparisons, generating paper-ready results text, or turning model-evaluation outputs into figures, tables, and defensible claims.
6 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- shkodnik1917/claude-brainlabtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Vepricov/claude-brainlabtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- GoogleCloudPlatform/LifeSciencestheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Chanw-research/claude-code-paper-writingedited, first seen May 10, 2026
- Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholartheir own version, first seen Apr 15, 2026
- Clay-HHK/claude-skillsedited, first seen Mar 5, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 2
- Chanw-research/claude-code-paper-writing★ 4294% same
- Clay-HHK/claude-skills★ 186% same
Wrote their own version · 4
- Galaxy-Dawn/claude-scholar★ 5.9ksame name
- GoogleCloudPlatform/LifeSciences★ 57same name
- shkodnik1917/claude-brainlab★ 35same name
- Vepricov/claude-brainlab★ 35same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- anti-defensive-writingSkill
- citation-verifierSkill
- claim-source-verificationSkill
- data-availabilitySkill
- draft-marker-disciplineSkill
- figure-plannerSkill
- manuscript-optimizerSkill
- paper-bootstrapSkill
- paper-workflowSkill
- rebuttal-responseSkill
- results-section-revisionSkill
- review-article-architectureSkill
- scientific-prose-styleSkill
- scientific-writingSkill
- stats-reporting-auditSkill
- submission-auditSkill
- write-scientific-manuscriptSkill
- figure-styleSkill
- nature-figureSkill
- academic-presentationsSkill
- conference-paper-writingSkill
- reference-audit-guideSkill
- academic-researcherSkill
- paper-analyzerSkill
- paper-reviewerSkill
- nature-portfolio-playbookSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Experimental Data Analysis: - Read and analyze experimental data in various formats
- Distinctive: line 20
Use this skill when you need to:
- Distinctive: line 71
Consider multiple comparison issues
- Distinctive: line 110
Use appropriate visualization tools to generate publication-quality figures.
- Distinctive: line 184
Use Okabe-Ito or Paul Tol palettes
- Distinctive: line 187
Keep figures clean and clear
- Distinctive: line 193
Not describing experimental setup
- Distinctive: line 234
After analysis, the following are generated:
- Distinctive: line 266
Data Loading: - Read results from experiment output files
- Distinctive: line 268
Visualization: - Create publication-quality figures
- Distinctive: line 293
Run experiments multiple times (at least 3-5 runs)
- Distinctive: line 295
Use appropriate statistical tests
- Distinctive: line 302
Not reporting experimental setup
- Distinctive: line 336
Data Loading and Validation: - Ensure data quality
- Distinctive: line 341
Quality Check: - Ensure reproducibility
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Results Analysis for ML/AI Research
A systematic experimental results analysis workflow connecting experimental data to paper writing.
Core Features
This skill provides three core capabilities:
- Experimental Data Analysis - Read and analyze experimental data in various formats
- Statistical Validation - Perform statistical significance tests and performance comparisons
- Paper Content Generation - Generate text and visualizations for the Results section
When to Use
Use this skill when you need to:
- Analyze experimental results (CSV, JSON, TensorBoard logs)
- Generate the Results section of a paper
- Compare performance across multiple models
- Perform statistical significance tests
- Create publication-quality visualizations
- Validate the reliability of experimental results
Workflow
Standard Analysis Pipeline
Data Loading → Data Validation → Statistical Analysis → Visualization → Writing → Quality CheckStep 1: Data Loading and Validation
Supported Data Formats:
- CSV files - Tabular data
- JSON files - Structured results
- TensorBoard logs - Training curves
- Python pickle - Complex objects
Data Validation Checks:
- Completeness check - Missing values, outliers
- Consistency check - Data format, units
- Reproducibility check - Random seeds, version info
Select appropriate tools for data loading and preliminary validation based on data format.
Step 2: Statistical Analysis
Basic Statistics:
- Mean
- Standard Deviation
- Standard Error
- Confidence Interval
Significance Tests:
- t-test - Two-group comparison
- ANOVA - Multi-group comparison
- Wilcoxon test - Non-parametric test
- Bonferroni correction - Multiple comparison correction
Select appropriate statistical tests based on data characteristics.
Key Principles:
- Report complete statistical information (mean ± std/SE)
- Specify the test method and significance level used
- Report p-values and effect sizes
- Consider multiple comparison issues
- Recompute examples and report values from the same unrounded inputs; mean, sample SD, n, test statistic, P and effect size must describe the same comparison and analysis unit.
- For a mean across datasets, first form each run's mean, then estimate variation across runs; averaging dataset SDs does not recover this uncertainty. Report only diagnostics actually run.
See references/statistical-methods.md for the complete statistical methods guide.
Step 3: Model Performance Comparison
Comparison Dimensions:
- Accuracy/Performance metrics
- Training time/Inference speed
- Model complexity/Parameter count
- Robustness/Generalization ability
Comparison Methods:
- Baseline comparison - Compare with existing methods
- Ablation study - Validate component contributions
- Cross-dataset validation - Test generalization
Systematically compare performance across different methods, ensuring fair comparison.
Step 4: Visualization
Publication-Quality Visualization Requirements:
- Vector format (PDF/EPS)
- Colorblind-friendly palette
- Clear labels and legends
- Appropriate error bars
- Readable in black-and-white print
Common Chart Types:
- Line chart - Training curves, trend analysis
- Bar chart - Performance comparison
- Box plot - Distribution display
- Heatmap - Correlation analysis
- Scatter plot - Relationship display
Use appropriate visualization tools to generate publication-quality figures.
See references/visualization-best-practices.md for the visualization guide.
Step 5: Writing the Results Section
Results Section Structure:
## Results
### Overview of Main Findings
[1-2 paragraphs summarizing core results]
### Experimental Setup
[Brief description of experimental configuration; details in appendix]
### Performance Comparison
[Comparison with baseline methods, including tables and figures]
### Ablation Study
[Validate contributions of each component]
### Statistical Reporting
[Effect sizes with intervals and n; inferential tests only where the design supports them, with the policy declared once in Methods]
### Qualitative Analysis
[Case studies, visualization examples]Writing Principles:
- Clearly state the hypothesis each experiment validates
- Guide readers to observe key phenomena: "Figure X shows..."
- Report complete statistical information
- Report null and negative results plainly, as findings; state the scope of the work once, in the Discussion
See references/results-writing-guide.md for the complete writing guide.
Step 6: Quality Check
Checklist:
- All values include error bars/confidence intervals
- Statistical test methods are specified
- Figures are clear and readable (including black-and-white print)
- Hyperparameter search ranges are reported
- Computational resources are specified (GPU type, time)
- Random seed settings are specified
- Results are reproducible (code/data available)
Common Mistakes and Pitfalls
Statistical Errors
❌ Wrong approach:
- Reporting only the best results (cherry-picking)
- Confusing standard deviation and standard error
- Claiming a difference without its effect size, interval and n
- Reporting several inferential tests without a multiplicity policy
✅ Correct approach:
- Report all experimental results
- Clearly specify whether standard deviation or standard error is used
- Perform statistical tests where the design supports them, with the unit of replication stated
- State one multiplicity policy (for example Holm or Benjamini-Hochberg) when several tests are reported
Visualization Errors
❌ Wrong approach:
- Using non-colorblind-friendly palettes
- Y-axis not starting from 0 (exaggerating differences)
- Missing error bars
- Overly complex figures
✅ Correct approach:
- Use Okabe-Ito or Paul Tol palettes
- Set reasonable axis ranges
- Include error bars and confidence intervals
- Keep figures clean and clear
Writing Errors
❌ Wrong approach:
- Over-interpreting results
- Not describing experimental setup
- Hiding negative results
- Missing statistical information
✅ Correct approach:
- Objectively describe observed phenomena
- Provide sufficient experimental details
- Honestly report all results
- Report complete statistical information
See references/common-pitfalls.md for the complete error patterns and fixes.
Integration with Paper Writing
Collaboration with Writing Skills
This skill focuses on experimental results analysis and works in tandem with the writing skills in this repository:
results-analysis handles:
- Data analysis and statistical tests
- Visualization generation
- Results interpretation
scientific-writing or conference-paper-writing handle:
- Complete paper structure
- Citation integration
- Venue-specific framing and formatting
Workflow Integration:
Experiments complete → results-analysis analyzes
↓
Generate analysis report and visualizations
↓
scientific-writing or conference-paper-writing integrates into paper
↓
Complete Results sectionOutput Format
After analysis, the following are generated:
- Analysis Report (
analysis-report.md)- Statistical summary
- Key findings
- Suggested figures
- Visualization Files (
figures/)- PDF format figures
- Standalone figure captions
- Results Draft (
results-draft.md)- Text ready for direct use in the paper
- Includes figure references
Examples and Templates
Example Files
The synthetic walkthrough in USAGE.md includes complete CSV runs and
scripts/example_statistics.py (requires SciPy). Run it with --example usage or
--example benchmark to recompute the appropriate example; it prints JSON without writing files.
Refer to the examples/ directory for complete examples:
example-analysis-report.md- Complete analysis report exampleexample-results-section.md- Paper Results section example
Workflow Overview
The complete analysis pipeline includes:
- Data Loading - Read results from experiment output files
- Statistical Analysis - Compute basic statistics and perform significance tests
- Visualization - Create publication-quality figures
- Report Generation - Integrate analysis results and visualizations
See the guides in the references/ directory for detailed methods and best practices.
Reference Resources
Detailed Guides
references/statistical-methods.md- Complete statistical methods guidereferences/results-writing-guide.md- Results section writing standardsreferences/visualization-best-practices.md- Visualization best practicesreferences/common-pitfalls.md- Common errors and fixes
External Resources
Best Practices Summary
Data Analysis
✅ Recommended:
- Run experiments multiple times (at least 3-5 runs)
- Report complete statistical information
- Use appropriate statistical tests
- Check data completeness
❌ Prohibited:
- Cherry-picking best results
- Claiming a difference the effect size and interval do not support
- Hiding negative results
- Not reporting experimental setup
Visualization
✅ Recommended:
- Use vector format
- Colorblind-friendly palettes
- Include error bars
- Clear labels
❌ Prohibited:
- Raster formats (PNG/JPG)
- Misleading axis scales
- Overly complex figures
- Missing legends
Writing
✅ Recommended:
- Objectively describe results
- Provide sufficient detail
- Report null and negative results plainly, as findings
- Guide reader attention
❌ Prohibited:
- Over-interpretation
- Hiding details
- Exaggerating effects
- Vague descriptions
Summary
This skill provides a systematic experimental results analysis workflow:
- Data Loading and Validation - Ensure data quality
- Statistical Analysis - Perform appropriate statistical tests
- Model Comparison - Systematic performance comparison
- Visualization - Publication-quality figures
- Writing - Results section content
- Quality Check - Ensure reproducibility
Following these principles produces high-quality, reproducible experimental results analysis that meets top conference standards.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

