agentleFS
huguryildizhuguryildiz/ALETHEIA/skills/extended/statistical-reporting/SKILL.md

statistical-reporting

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when a numeric result is about to be reported, compared, or put in a paper — enforcing replication counts, uncertainty intervals, paired comparisons on matched instances, and visible denominators. Also use when designing how many runs a claim needs. Trigger phrases: "is this difference real", "how many replications", "report with confidence intervals", "single run result", "compare method A vs B", "is N=3 enough".

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

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    Run paired where comparing: All arms see the *same* realization list (same instances, same seeds).

    line 39

≈ “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

statistical-reporting

Never report a single run as a result. A number from one draw of a stochastic system is an anecdote; a claim is a distribution summarized honestly: center, spread, replication count, and — for comparisons — a paired design with the pairing stated. This skill governs how numbers become claims.

When to use

  • A numeric result is entering a build-log entry, a decision's evidence, or a paper draft.
  • Designing a campaign: choosing the replication unit and count before launch.
  • Comparing methods, configurations, or arms.
  • Reviewing a draft for naked point estimates.

When NOT to use

  • Deterministic quantities (an exact count, a closed-form value, a proven bound) — report the value; intervals around determinism are theater.
  • Exploratory probes not yet feeding a claim — but promote them through this skill before they do.
  • Choosing seeds/realization mechanics — run-provenance.

Runbook

  1. Declare the replication unit before running — what varies across replications (random instances, seeds, data splits, noise draws) and what stays fixed. The unit defines what population the claim generalizes to.
  2. Set N in the run contract, not after seeing results. Working default: ~10 realizations per cell for expensive computations, more when cheap; the honest minimum is whatever supports the interval you intend to report.
  3. Run paired where comparing. All arms see the same realization list (same instances, same seeds); report per-realization differences, not differences of aggregates.
  4. Summarize with center + spread + N: median (or mean) with an interquartile band / bootstrap CI / standard error — and N visible in every table and caption. For small N or unknown distributions prefer rank-based tests (e.g. paired signed-rank) over normality assumptions.
  5. Keep denominators visible. Failed, infeasible, and timed-out cells are part of the result: "median over the 6/10 realizations that completed; 4 infeasible (recorded)" — never silently condition on success (evidence-convention rule 5).
  6. Report direction, magnitude, and uncertainty — not a bare p-value. A significant difference of negligible size and a non-significant trend are both reportable truths; say which you have.

Rules

  1. One run, no claim. A single-realization number may appear only as a labeled illustration ("representative realization"), never as the result.
  2. The comparison set is declared in advance (the run contract / expectation field — see evidence-convention). Comparisons invented after seeing the numbers are labeled post-hoc and carry no confirmatory weight.
  3. No selective replication. Adding realizations until the test passes, or dropping "unlucky" seeds, is p-hacking with extra steps; N is fixed by the contract, deviations are recorded.
  4. Match before you compare. Arms differing in more than the treatment (different instances, different budgets) produce differences with no interpretation; matching is a design property, not a statistical patch.
  5. Uncertainty from the right variance. Spread across realizations ≠ spread within one realization's iterates; state which is shown.
  6. Small-N humility. With N ≤ 5, report the raw per-realization table alongside any summary — readers can then judge for themselves.

Configuration

  • {{evidence_dir}} — campaign outputs and per-realization tables.

Provenance & maintenance

Authored from the statistical-reporting canon for computational experiments (replication, pairing, visible denominators, rank-based small-N tests), grounded in working practice: a campaign design of ~10 realizations per cell with paired rank-based comparison across arms on identical realization lists, infeasible cells recorded verbatim as findings, and per-realization difference tables computed post-hoc from the evidence CSVs. See the pack's examples/ directory for the worked exemplar mapping.

Re-verify in your project:

  • grep -h "seeds\|realizations" {{evidence_dir}}/*/meta.json | head -3 — N is declared in the contract, not improvised.
  • Spot-check a recent table/caption for center + spread + N all present.
  • grep -rn "INFEASIBLE\|TIMEOUT\|failed" {{evidence_dir}}/*/README.md | head — denominators are recorded, not conditioned away (adapt status names).

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.