agentleFS
creatop-gtmcreatop-gtm/apollo-operator/.claude/skills/experiment-design/SKILL.md

experiment-design

Skill8 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub

Design single-variable outbound experiments (list-only, copy-only, combined) so you learn what actually works. Use to improve a campaign deliberately.

31 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    If you change the list, the copy, and the offer at once, and it works, you learn nothing, because you cannot say what worked.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not experiment before you have a baseline.

    line 15
  3. Distinctive:

    Name the single variable: Write down exactly what changes and everything that stays the same.

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    Decide success up front: Write the target and the failure line before you launch, so you cannot rationalize a different "learning" after …

    line 28
  5. Distinctive:

    If you are unsure what to test first, this is usually the impact order: list, then offer, then subject, then opener, then CTA, then timing.

    line 35

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 22 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

Experiment Design (Iterate)

If you change the list, the copy, and the offer at once, and it works, you learn nothing, because you cannot say what worked. This forces one variable per experiment so you actually learn.

When to use

  • A campaign is running and you want to improve it deliberately, not by guessing.
  • You have a baseline: at least one campaign that ran three weeks, so you know your normal.

Do not experiment before you have a baseline. You need a control before you can run a test.

The three kinds

  • List-only: change the targeting, hold copy and offer fixed. Learn whether a segment is a better fit.
  • Copy-only: change the copy or a variant, hold the list and offer fixed. Learn whether a message resonates.
  • Combined: a whole new campaign for a new ICP. You cannot isolate, so treat the result as a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

The framework

  1. Write the hypothesis in one sentence. "Targeting heads of ops instead of VPs of sales will get a higher positive reply rate, because they feel this pain daily." If you cannot write it in a sentence, you do not understand the experiment yet.
  2. Name the single variable. Write down exactly what changes and everything that stays the same. If any "constant" is actually moving, stop and fix it, or call it a combined experiment.
  3. Size it honestly. Small samples lie. If a test arm has only a handful of sends, you cannot tell signal from noise. Bigger effects need fewer sends; small effects need many. When unsure, run more before you conclude.
  4. Decide success up front. Write the target and the failure line before you launch, so you cannot rationalize a different "learning" after seeing the data.
  5. Launch both arms at the same time, same infrastructure split, same schedule. Day-of-week and warmup differences will confound a staggered test.
  6. Measure after the full sequence has run (through the last step plus a reply grace period), using positive-reply-scoring. Pull each arm's numbers with campaign-reporting, grouped by template for copy tests, and keep the send count next to every rate. Measuring early biases toward the first email.
  7. Weight the result by confidence. A clean single-variable test with enough volume is high confidence. A combined test is low. Say which.

Priority order

If you are unsure what to test first, this is usually the impact order: list, then offer, then subject, then opener, then CTA, then timing. A bad list beats any copy, so fix targeting before you A/B a subject line.

No borrowed benchmarks

Judge every result against your own past campaigns, not an industry number. Your baseline is the only honest yardstick.

Common mistakes

  • Changing three things and claiming victory. You learned nothing.
  • Calling it early. Cold replies trickle in over weeks.
  • Testing copy on a broken list. Fix the list first.
  • A combined win adopted as a new baseline. Split it into single-variable follow-ups to find what actually drove it.

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.