agentleFS
ehnruizehnruiz/claude-skills/skills/explain-the-number/SKILL.md

explain-the-number

Skill3 starsChanged 30 days agoMITView on GitHub

Like-for-like before a measured number is reported or credited to a change. Use before saying a change moved a score, a count, a before/after delta, a benchmark time or speedup, a Lighthouse or Core Web Vitals result, an eval score, or an error, conversion or traffic rate. For whether the tests and gates passed, use `regression-proof`.

The file

Files
SKILL.md

Explain the number

A number credits a cause only when the comparison is like-for-like and nothing else that changed between the runs explains it. Every number is held to this, the one that looks clean included: a count taken over the same number of items carries the same suspects as the score beside it. Credit and license: LICENSE.md in this folder.

  1. Diff the coverage before the result. Set the two runs side by side on what they looked at:

    • the population: the actual set of pages, requests, users, test cases or files, not only the count, since two runs of 31 pages can be two different 31;
    • the measures: which checks, metrics or stages ran in each, and which were skipped;
    • the setup: tool and runtime versions, config, hardware or device profile, data or fixtures;
    • the world: deploys, content changes, traffic shifts and incidents in between.

    Each difference is a second explanation for the change.

  2. Rule out each explanation with evidence. The usual suspects: a check or stage that did not run; items the newer run did not look at again (not looked at, so not fixed); items newly in scope (never seen before, so not new); a tool or dependency bump that moved a measure; cached, warmed-up or skipped work; one run of a noisy measure. A field that is missing from one run is unknown, not zero. Name the evidence that rules each suspect out, or keep it as a caveat.
  3. Name the limiter of a timing. For a duration or speedup, say which stage bounds it (start-up, the network, I/O, one slow step). A total covers everything; a per-item time usually covers only part of the work. Credit a stage with a speedup only from that stage's own time.
  4. Match the measure's window and spread. A rolling measure (Core Web Vitals field data is a 28-day p75, weekly analytics a 7-day sum) has moved at most a fraction since last week's deploy. A benchmark or an eval needs several trials and their spread before a gap between two versions, prompts or models counts.
  5. Report coverage with the number. Say what ran, what did not, and how many runs stand behind it. A measurement that did not run is reported as "did not run", never counted as clean. Full coverage is required to clear something, not to charge it: a problem that was reported has been looked at.

The step is done when every number you report has its coverage stated and each difference from step 1 is either ruled out with evidence or written beside the number. When what is left is not like-for-like, report what is, say what is not, and name the run that would settle 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.