agentleFS
TomSzenessyTomSzenessy/AI_TEMPLATE/.agents/skills/experiment-lab/SKILL.md

experiment-lab

Skill0 starsChanged 10 days agoMITView on GitHub

Experiment simulator and evaluation harness: reaches a measured goal by building a deterministic core and a local simulator first, then one-change experiments on a ledger; Use when success is a metric, benchmark, A/B result, latency or cost target, or leaderboard score, especially when real measurements are slow, costly, or limited

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Objective: Write the metric's formula, the averaging unit and the conditions of the measurement that matters into the goal's issue or …

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    Options before code: Run the strategist role with the goal and constraints.

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    Deterministic core: Put numbers, constraints and decisions in tested code.

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    Every behaviour change becomes a named switch, off by default.

    line 28
  5. Very specific:

    Ledger: Create experiments/ledger.md.

    line 34
  6. Very specific:

    Dry run: Before a run that is hard to undo, run it once under the real conditions with the pre-run check of section 8, then make the …

    line 44

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Experiment lab

Outcome: the goal's number improves through measured, reproducible steps, and slow or costly real measurements are spent only to confirm what a cheap local evaluation already ranked. Load this when success is a number (a model metric, a benchmark, an A/B result, latency, cost, a leaderboard). The rules and their reasons live in docs/experiments.md; this skill is the order of work. For a small goal, steps 1, 3, 5 and 6 are enough.

Steps

  1. Objective. Write the metric's formula, the averaging unit and the conditions of the measurement that matters into the goal's issue or context doc; implement it as a local function and check it against one real result. Rebuild any external evaluator's checks locally, and write the plan into the goal's issue (docs/experiments.md section 1).
  2. Options before code. Run the strategist role with the goal and constraints; ask skill-scout for the capabilities its top options need. Pick by expected gain per costly measurement, and record both answers in the goal's issue.
  3. Deterministic core. Put numbers, constraints and decisions in tested code; give a model only reading, writing and choosing among valid options. Every behaviour change becomes a named switch, off by default.
  4. Lab, when real measurements are scarce. Record real interactions, fit simulators of the environment and what it talks to, add generated variants, split train and held-out scenarios, and report the must-be-zero counts. Add the stress tests (hung calls, caps, a dependency that stops answering, parallel load) before the first tuning.
  5. Ledger. Create experiments/ledger.md; each row names hypothesis, change, commit, tier, cases, lab prediction, result and verdict. A run whose result others will rely on starts with make pull-first.
  6. Loop. One change per experiment, cheapest deciding tier first (offline replay, lab, sandbox, then costly real; real runs only on the cases the replay shows changing), judged by the paired verdict. Promote a switch only when the held-out lab and a real confirmation agree. After three experiments without a gain, stop and rerun step 2 with the results so far and prior art.
  7. Learnings. Move each durable finding into its owner doc with a confidence tag (confirmed, computed, reported, hypothesis); mark refuted ones.
  8. Dry run. Before a run that is hard to undo, run it once under the real conditions with the pre-run check of section 8, then make the readiness disclosure in docs/verification.md.

Done when

  • The local metric matches a real result, and the lab (if built) reports zero crashes, invalid actions, broken constraints and timeouts on held-out and stress scenarios.
  • The ledger shows each promoted switch with its commit and its confirming measurement.
  • Untested candidates and residual risks are issues the owner has seen.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.