experiment
Skill64 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Run parallel experiments across git worktrees. Define competing approaches to the same problem, dispatch sub-agents to implement each in isolation, then compare results. Use when you have 2-5 alternatives and want to test all of them before committing to one.
27 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- SethGammon/Citadeltheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- DaeSeokSong/oh-my-ouroborostheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Anglesite/anglesite-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- simota/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 23, 2026
- akasecurity/preflight-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- DoKu67/claude-code-skilstheir own version, first seen Oct 16, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use cost, decide and 8 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
maxvaegaSkillcost
Estimate what Claude Cowork / Claude Code conversations would cost if run on the pay-per-token Claude API instead of the subscription. Reports token counts and cache-aware API cost in USD and EUR, for the current conversation or for the whole history (cost per conversation). Trigger when the user asks things like "how much would this conversation cost on the API", "API cost of my Cowork conversations", "token usage / token count", "cost per conversation", "/cost", or wants to compare subscription vs API pricing.
Also in 3 projects that use this
dirienSkilldecide
Three-agent adversarial debate protocol for strategic decisions. Two advocates steelman opposing positions while a moderator identifies risks and synthesizes a binding consensus. Use when choosing between alternatives, evaluating tradeoffs, or making high-stakes decisions.
Also in 3 projects that use this
javatarzSkillwiki
Access and manage the local GitHub Wiki clone. Use this skill when you need to read wiki content (architecture, design docs, guides), update wiki documentation, check wiki status, or push wiki changes. The wiki contains high-level system design and architectural documentation.
Also in 3 projects that use this
HeshamFSSkillloop
Run a command or check on a recurring interval
Also in 3 projects that use this
ibahgatSkillautopilot
Run autonomous multi-stage execution loops until acceptance criteria pass or blockers are reached.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkilldebug
Structured debugging session — reproduce, isolate, diagnose, and fix. Trigger with an error message or stack trace, "this works in staging but not prod", "something broke after the deploy", or when behavior diverges from expected and the cause isn't obvious.
Also in 4 projects that use this
Other versions27 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 27
- rohanpsingh/LearningHumanoidWalking★ 1.2ksame name
- SethGammon/Citadel★ 927same name
- menkesu/awesome-pm-skills★ 441same name
- ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst★ 304same name
- simota/agent-skills★ 96same name
- sunnnybala/Rstack★ 69same name
- logly/mureo★ 64same name
- alirezarezvani/gaios★ 37same name
- skyf0xx/gambit★ 29same name
- SethGammon/Armory★ 19same name
17 more not listed
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 repository102 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- assumptionsSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- Codex-opus-4-6-promptingSkill
- Codex-promptSkill
- mcp-code-modeSkill
- deploy-team-hubSkill
- diagramSkill
- distillSkill
- effect-tsSkill
- escalateSkill
- evalSkill
- hddSkill
- hub-auditSkill
- hub-collabSkill
- implementSkill
- knowledgeSkill
- peer-notebook-delivery-guardSkill
- research-taskSkill
- session-reviewSkill
- source-command-hdd-decideSkill
- source-command-hdd-hddSkill
- source-command-hdd-researchSkill
- source-command-hdd-stage-adrSkill
- source-command-hdd-validateSkill
- statusSkill
- supabaseSkill
- synthesizeSkill
- tasteSkill
- teamSkill
- test-suiteSkill
- theseus-protocolSkill
- thoughtbox:debugSkill
- thoughtbox:decisionSkill
- thoughtbox:evolutionSkill
- thoughtbox:knowledge-querySkill
- thoughtbox:onboardSkill
- thoughtbox:refactorSkill
- thoughtbox:researchSkill
- thoughtbox:session-reviewSkill
- thoughtbox-teamSkill
- ulc-loopSkill
- ulysses-protocolSkill
- workflow-brainstormingSkill
- workflow-ideationSkill
- workflow-reflectionSkill
- workflow-revisionSkill
- workflows-compoundSkill
- workflowSkill
- workflows-planSkill
- workflows-reviewSkill
- workflows-workSkill
- workflow-tournamentSkill
- assumptionsSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- claude-opus-4-6-promptingSkill
- claude-promptSkill
- mcp-code-modeSkill
- deploy-team-hubSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
17 rules. 0 are common, 15 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 25 edited versions we read keep these.
15
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- could be automatic: a setting could enforce it
- Distinctive: line 8
Run a parallel experiment: $ARGUMENTS
- Distinctive: line 12
Test multiple competing approaches to the same problem simultaneously.
- Distinctive: line 40
Conflict check: If two tracks modify the same files in incompatible ways, flag this to the user before proceeding.
- Distinctive: line 55
Verify all worktrees were created:
- Distinctive: line 72
Write tests for your changes
- Distinctive: line 73
Run tests and report results
- Distinctive: line 74
Commit your work to the worktree's branch
- Distinctive: line 138
After all sub-agents complete, produce a comparison:
- Distinctive: line 168
When the user picks a winner:
- Very specific: line 186
Worktrees are siblings: Always create worktrees as siblings to the repo (../), never inside it.
- Distinctive: line 188
Independent tracks only: If tracks would conflict on the same files, split differently or run sequentially.
- Very specific: line 190
Clean branch names: Always use exp/ prefix for experiment branches.
- Distinctive: line 194
Do NOT create more than 5 tracks — if there are more alternatives, group them
- Distinctive: line 195
Do NOT run experiments for trivial choices (if one option is obviously better, just do it)
- Distinctive: line 196
Do NOT let sub-agents work outside their assigned worktree
- Distinctive: line 197
Do NOT merge without user approval
- Distinctive: line 198
Do NOT leave worktrees around after the experiment concludes — remind the user to clean up
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 25 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
Run a parallel experiment: $ARGUMENTS
Purpose
Test multiple competing approaches to the same problem simultaneously. Each approach gets its own git worktree and sub-agent. Results are compared at the end so the best approach can be merged.
This is NOT for parallelizing parts of one plan (use /workflows-work for that). This is for when you genuinely don't know which approach is best and want to try all of them.
Process
Phase 1: Define Tracks (orchestrator does this)
Parse the input (a gap analysis, a list of alternatives, a brainstorm, or a user description) and produce a track list:
TRACK DEFINITION
================
Base branch: <current branch or specified base>
Track A: <name>
Branch: exp/<slug-a>
Approach: <1-2 sentence description>
Files touched: <predicted file list>
Effort: low | medium | high
Track B: <name>
Branch: exp/<slug-b>
...
[up to 5 tracks]Conflict check: If two tracks modify the same files in incompatible ways, flag this to the user before proceeding. Parallel experiments must be independent.
Present the track list to the user and wait for confirmation before proceeding.
Phase 2: Create Worktrees
For each track, create a worktree branching from the base:
# From the repo root
git worktree add ../<repo-name>-exp-<slug> -b exp/<slug>Worktree naming convention: ../<repo-name>-exp-<slug> (sibling to the main repo directory).
Verify all worktrees were created:
git worktree listPhase 3: Dispatch Sub-Agents (parallel)
Dispatch one sub-agent per track using the Agent tool. All independent tracks run in parallel.
Each sub-agent receives:
- Working directory: The worktree path (CRITICAL — sub-agent must
cdhere) - Track definition: What to implement and why
- Source context: Relevant file contents from the base branch (read before dispatching)
- Acceptance criteria: What "done" looks like for this track
- Instructions:
- Work ONLY in your assigned worktree directory
- Write tests for your changes
- Run tests and report results
- Commit your work to the worktree's branch
- Return the structured summary (see format below)
Sub-Agent Prompt Template
You are implementing Track [X]: [name]
WORKING DIRECTORY: [worktree path]
BRANCH: exp/[slug]
## What to implement
[approach description]
## Files to modify
[file list with current contents provided inline]
## Acceptance criteria
[specific, testable criteria]
## Rules
1. Work ONLY in [worktree path] — never touch the main repo
2. Write tests first, then implement
3. Run tests: [test command]
4. Commit when tests pass:
git add [files]
git commit -m "exp([slug]): [description]"
5. Return the structured summary below
## Return Format
[see Sub-Agent Summary Format]Sub-Agent Summary Format
Each sub-agent MUST return:
## Experiment Track: [name]
### Result
- Branch: exp/[slug]
- Status: COMPLETE | PARTIAL | FAILED
- Tests: N passing, N failing
### What was built
[2-3 sentences describing the implementation]
### What works well
[Strengths of this approach]
### What doesn't work well
[Weaknesses, rough edges, things that felt wrong]
### Demo readiness
[How well does this serve the original use case?]
Score: 1-5 (1=unusable, 5=demo-ready)
### Files changed
[list with +/- line counts]Phase 4: Compare Results
After all sub-agents complete, produce a comparison:
EXPERIMENT RESULTS
==================
Question: [original problem being solved]
Base branch: [base]
Tracks tested: [N]
| Criterion | Track A | Track B | Track C |
|------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------|
| Tests passing | Y/N | Y/N | Y/N |
| Demo readiness | [score]/5 | [score]/5 | [score]/5 |
| Code changes | +N/-N lines | +N/-N lines | +N/-N lines |
| Complexity added | low/med/high | low/med/high | low/med/high |
| Strengths | [key strength] | [key strength] | [key strength] |
| Weaknesses | [key weakness] | [key weakness] | [key weakness] |
RECOMMENDATION: Track [X] because [reason]
NEXT STEPS:
- To adopt Track X: git merge exp/<slug> into <base branch>
- To clean up: git worktree remove ../<repo>-exp-<slug> (for each)
- To inspect: cd ../<repo>-exp-<slug> && git log --onelinePresent the comparison and recommendation. Do NOT merge or clean up worktrees — let the user decide.
Phase 5: Cleanup (only on user request)
When the user picks a winner:
# Merge the winner
git merge exp/<winning-slug>
# Remove all experiment worktrees
git worktree remove ../<repo>-exp-<slug-a>
git worktree remove ../<repo>-exp-<slug-b>
git worktree remove ../<repo>-exp-<slug-c>
# Delete experiment branches
git branch -d exp/<slug-a> exp/<slug-b> exp/<slug-c>Operational Rules
- Orchestrator never implements: You dispatch sub-agents. You read source files to provide context. You do NOT write code yourself.
- Worktrees are siblings: Always create worktrees as siblings to the repo (
../), never inside it. - Confirm before creating: Present the track list and get user approval before creating worktrees.
- Independent tracks only: If tracks would conflict on the same files, split differently or run sequentially.
- No premature merging: Present results and let the user choose. The user may want to inspect, combine, or discard.
- Clean branch names: Always use
exp/prefix for experiment branches. Never timestamps or UUIDs.
Anti-Patterns
- Do NOT create more than 5 tracks — if there are more alternatives, group them
- Do NOT run experiments for trivial choices (if one option is obviously better, just do it)
- Do NOT let sub-agents work outside their assigned worktree
- Do NOT merge without user approval
- Do NOT leave worktrees around after the experiment concludes — remind the user to clean up
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.

