experiments
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Design and grade validation experiments — price tests, concierge/manual MVPs, landing/smoke tests, channel tests, pre-sales — as test cards with explicit hypotheses, metrics, and pass/fail bars. Use when an assumption can't be validated by interviews alone (especially willingness to pay — only refusable prices produce truth), when choosing an MVP, or when a founder reports experiment results.
6 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- microsoft/vscodetheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- ajstars1/founder-stackedited, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- sghng/abstracttheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- growthbook/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 30, 2026
- arusli1/askillstheir own version, first seen Sep 2, 2026
- ferrants/amazon-seller-agent-claude-codetheir own version, first seen May 17, 2026
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- ajstars1/founder-stack★ 191% same
Wrote their own version · 5
- microsoft/vscode★ 195ksame name
- growthbook/skills★ 23same name
- ferrants/amazon-seller-agent-claude-code★ 8same name
- arusli1/askills★ 1same name
- sghng/abstract★ 0same 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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- business-model-canvasSkill
- customer-discoverySkill
- facts-assumptions-unknownsSkill
- jtbdSkill
- problem-discoverySkill
- secondary-researchSkill
- startup-coachSkill
- startup-scorecardSkill
- value-proposition-canvasSkill
- where-to-playSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 34
Write the ledger delta: grade moved (e.g., A7: E1 → E4-fail at ₹150, E4-pass at ₹100), items killed, new unknowns.
- Distinctive: line 40
Test cards for the 1–3 riskiest ledger items (never a backlog of ten — the queue is the enemy of the loop), each with belief ID, setup, …
“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
Experiments — Test Cards & Evidence Grading
Credits: David J. Bland & Alexander Osterwalder — Testing Business Ideas (strategyzer.com); MVP/concierge practice — Eric Ries (The Lean Startup); hypothesis discipline — Steve Blank.
Why this skill exists: interviews produce E1 stories and E3 commitments, but some beliefs — above all willingness to pay — only yield truth at E4: a refusable price, accepted or declined. Surveys and "would you pay?" answers are E0–E1 regardless of how many you collect.
The Test Card (one per experiment — template in TEMPLATES.md)
- Belief under test — one ledger item (
A⟨n⟩), phrased falsifiably. - Test — the cheapest setup that produces a real behavior (not an opinion).
- Metric — what you count, defined before you run.
- Pass/fail bar — a number committed in advance (an educated guess beats no bar; moving the bar after results is self-deception).
- Evidence grade the test can produce — design for the grade you need: pricing needs E4-capable tests; channel questions need E2+.
- Cost & duration cap — cheap and fast beats rigorous and never-run.
The core test menu (pick the cheapest that can move the belief)
- Concierge / manual service — deliver the service by hand, no software; real transactions (E4) at near-zero build cost. Usually the strongest first test for service businesses; instrument every delivery (time, distance, cost-to-serve, order value).
- Price test — quote a real, named, refusable price to real prospects at the moment of intent. Track accept/negotiate/decline by level. Visible surcharges beat bundled costs — you learn nothing from a price nobody can refuse. (E4)
- Pre-sale / deposit / LOI — money or signed intent before the thing exists. (E4/E3)
- Smoke test / landing page / forwardable offer card — a real call-to-action into a channel; measure who acts, not who likes. (E2–E3)
- Channel test — same offer, 2+ channels, counts kept per channel; instrument referral chains (who forwarded to whom). CAC only exists after this. (E2)
- Wizard-of-Oz / prototype session — watch real users attempt the real task; count completion and drop-off step, not opinions. (E2)
- Shadowing / observation — watch the job being done today; workarounds found in the field are E2 gold.
Grading results (when the founder reports back)
- Compare against the pre-committed bar — pass, fail, or invalid test (didn't run as designed; a broken pipe is not a demand verdict — check delivery before interpreting silence).
- Write the ledger delta: grade moved (e.g.,
A7: E1 → E4-fail at ₹150, E4-pass at ₹100), items killed, new unknowns. - Watch for: bar moved after the fact · counting compliments as conversions · n=1 celebrated as a pattern · concierge costs ignored (a test that loses money on every order proved demand, not a business — route to
/business-model-canvasunit economics). - Persist to
discovery/experiments/⟨date⟩-⟨name⟩.md.
Output
Test cards for the 1–3 riskiest ledger items (never a backlog of ten — the queue is the enemy of the loop), each with belief ID, setup, metric, pre-committed bar, target grade, cost cap — plus, for reported results, the graded ledger delta and the next cheapest test.
Fill-in templates: TEMPLATES.md in this skill's folder.
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.

