agentleFS
coleschaffercoleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc/skills/ab-test-plan/SKILL.md

ab-test-plan

Skill32 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Generate structured A/B test plans for DTC funnels — hypothesis, control vs variant, primary metric, sample size estimate, test duration, and success criteria using RMBC principles.

4 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 11

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions.

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    Write a falsifiable hypothesis in this format: "Changing [element] from [control version] to [variant version] will increase [primary …

    line 47
  3. Distinctive:

    Must include at least one full weekend cycle

    line 85
  4. Distinctive:

    If duration exceeds 4 weeks at 15% MDE, recommend increasing MDE to 20-25% or testing a higher-impact element

    line 86
  5. Distinctive:

    No significant negative movement in secondary metrics (especially refund rate for price/offer tests)

    line 92
  6. Distinctive:

    Offer tests: Verify fulfillment capacity for the variant

    line 98
  7. Distinctive:

    Layout tests: Check mobile rendering before launch

    line 99
  8. Distinctive:

    Copy length tests: Ensure tracking captures scroll depth

    line 100
  9. Distinctive:

    Only ONE variable may change between control and variant — multi-variable tests produce unusable data

    line 160
  10. Distinctive:

    Specificity gate: Every recommendation must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "test for improvement" or "optimize results"

    line 166
  11. Distinctive:

    Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)

    line 167
  12. Distinctive:

    Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

    line 169
  13. Very specific:

    Run /funnel-audit to identify which funnel step needs testing most

    line 173
  14. Very specific:

    Run /hook-battery to generate headline variants for headline tests

    line 174
  15. Very specific:

    Run /order-form-cro for checkout element test ideas

    line 175
  16. Very specific:

    Run /lander-copy to generate landing page variant copy

    line 176
  17. Very specific:

    Run /guarantee-writer for guarantee variant options

    line 177

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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.

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

ab-test-plan

Purpose

Generate structured A/B test plans for DTC funnels. Testing is how you turn opinions into revenue data. Most teams waste tests by changing too many variables, running too short, or measuring the wrong metric. This skill produces a single, clean test plan with a falsifiable hypothesis, defined control and variant, primary metric, sample size estimate, expected duration, and success criteria. Every test plan connects back to RMBC — you're testing Research assumptions, Mechanism angles, Brief strategies, or Copy execution.

Inputs

InputRequiredDescription
page_typeYesWhat you're testing: landing_page, order_form, upsell, email, ad, checkout
current_metricYesBaseline performance: conversion rate, CTR, AOV, or revenue per visitor
hypothesisYesWhat you believe will improve performance and why
traffic_volumeYesDaily unique visitors or impressions to the test page
test_elementYesOne of: headline, price, offer, layout, copy_length, mechanism, cta, guarantee, social_proof

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions. A/B testing validates RMBC decisions with data — Research assumptions get tested through audience-facing copy, Mechanism strength gets tested through conversion lift, Brief strategy gets tested through engagement, Copy execution gets tested through click and purchase behavior.

Step 2 — Classify the Test Type

Test TypeWhat ChangesTypical LiftRisk Level
HeadlineLead/hook copy only5-30%Low — copy swap, no structural change
PricePrice point or framing10-50%Medium — affects AOV and refund rate
OfferWhat's included in the deal15-60%Medium — may affect fulfillment
LayoutPage structure, element order5-20%Low-Medium — design change only
Copy LengthLong vs short form10-40%Low — same offer, different depth
MechanismWhich "why it works" angle10-35%Low — copy change, different angle
CTAButton text, placement, urgency5-15%Low — smallest change, quickest test
GuaranteeRisk reversal type or duration5-25%Low-Medium — may affect refund rate
Social ProofTestimonials, numbers, authority5-20%Low — additive element

Step 3 — Build the Test Plan

3a: Hypothesis Statement

Write a falsifiable hypothesis in this format: "Changing [element] from [control version] to [variant version] will increase [primary metric] by [estimated %] because [RMBC-grounded reason]."

The reason must connect to an RMBC phase:

  • Research-based: "Our ICP research shows the audience responds more to fear than desire"
  • Mechanism-based: "The current mechanism angle is too generic — the variant names a specific process"
  • Brief-based: "The page leads with features when proof should come first for this awareness level"
  • Copy-based: "The CTA is vague — benefit-driven button text reduces friction"

3b: Control vs Variant

Define exactly what stays the same and what changes. Only ONE variable changes per test.

3c: Primary Metric

Choose ONE primary metric. Secondary metrics are tracked but don't determine the winner.

Page TypePrimary MetricSecondary Metrics
Landing pageConversion rate (visitor → buyer)Bounce rate, time on page, scroll depth
Order formCheckout completion rateCart abandonment rate, AOV
UpsellTake rate (% who accept)Revenue per visitor, refund rate
EmailClick-through rateOpen rate, unsubscribe rate, conversion
AdCTR or CPACPM, frequency, relevance score

3d: Sample Size Estimate

Calculate minimum sample size per variation using:

  • Baseline conversion rate (from current_metric)
  • Minimum detectable effect (MDE): 10-20% relative improvement (default 15%)
  • Statistical significance: 95% confidence (p < 0.05)
  • Statistical power: 80%

Provide the estimate and the formula reasoning. Flag if traffic volume means the test will take longer than 4 weeks — long tests accumulate confounding variables.

3e: Test Duration

Duration = (Sample size per variation × 2) / Daily traffic

Rules:

  • Minimum 7 days (capture full weekly cycle)
  • Maximum 4 weeks (diminishing returns, external variables)
  • Must include at least one full weekend cycle
  • If duration exceeds 4 weeks at 15% MDE, recommend increasing MDE to 20-25% or testing a higher-impact element

3f: Success Criteria

Define before launch — never move the goalposts mid-test:

  • Primary metric improvement at 95% confidence
  • Minimum sample size reached
  • No significant negative movement in secondary metrics (especially refund rate for price/offer tests)

Step 4 — Risk Assessment

Flag risks specific to this test type:

  • Price tests: Monitor refund rate for 30 days post-test
  • Offer tests: Verify fulfillment capacity for the variant
  • Layout tests: Check mobile rendering before launch
  • Copy length tests: Ensure tracking captures scroll depth

Output Format

## A/B Test Plan: [Test Name]

**Page:** [page_type]
**Element:** [test_element]
**Current Metric:** [baseline]
**Daily Traffic:** [volume]

---

### HYPOTHESIS
[Falsifiable hypothesis statement with RMBC reasoning]

### CONTROL (A)
[Exact description of current version]

### VARIANT (B)
[Exact description of changed version — only ONE variable different]

### METRICS

| | Primary | Secondary |
|---|---------|-----------|
| **Metric** | [metric] | [metric 1], [metric 2] |
| **Current** | [baseline] | [baselines if known] |
| **Target** | [+X% improvement] | [monitor only] |

### SAMPLE SIZE & DURATION

- **Sample per variation:** [number]
- **Total sample needed:** [number]
- **Estimated duration:** [X days]
- **MDE:** [X%]
- **Confidence:** 95%

### SUCCESS CRITERIA
1. [Primary metric criteria]
2. [Sample size criteria]
3. [Secondary metric guardrails]

### RISKS
- [Risk 1 + mitigation]
- [Risk 2 + mitigation]

### NEXT STEPS
- [ ] Implement variant
- [ ] QA on mobile and desktop
- [ ] Set up tracking and dashboards
- [ ] Launch test on [recommended day]
- [ ] Check results at [midpoint] — do NOT stop early
- [ ] Call winner at [end date] if criteria met

Quality Criteria

  • Hypothesis must be falsifiable and grounded in a specific RMBC phase — "I think this will work better" is not a hypothesis
  • Only ONE variable may change between control and variant — multi-variable tests produce unusable data
  • Sample size must be calculated, not guessed — underpowered tests declare false winners
  • Duration must include at least one full weekly cycle — weekday-only data skews results
  • Success criteria must be defined before launch — post-hoc criteria are just confirmation bias
  • Price and offer tests must track refund rates for 30 days — a "winning" price that doubles refunds loses money
  • Specificity gate: Every recommendation must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "test for improvement" or "optimize results"
  • Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
  • Audience journey: Each recommendation must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
  • Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

Related Skills

  • Run /funnel-audit to identify which funnel step needs testing most
  • Run /hook-battery to generate headline variants for headline tests
  • Run /order-form-cro for checkout element test ideas
  • Run /lander-copy to generate landing page variant copy
  • Run /guarantee-writer for guarantee variant options
  • Validate test copy with /rmbc-copy-audit

Attribution

Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join

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.