agentleFS
shkodnik1917shkodnik1917/claude-brainlab/skills/results-report/SKILL.md

results-report

Skill35 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Writes a complete project-level experiment report from verified analysis artifacts, with a decision-oriented narrative and unresolved limitations. Use when the user asks for an experiment wrap-up, a results report or a summary after results-analysis is done and the experiments are finished.

2 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. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 8

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Write the complete post-experiment summary report after analysis artifacts are ready.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not replace strict analysis with confident prose.

    line 29
  3. Very specific:

    Read references/report-naming.md before finalizing the filename or note title.

    line 51
  4. Very specific:

    Read references/report-structure.md before writing.

    line 88
  5. Very specific:

    If round is unknown, do not silently invent a semantic round.

    line 102
  6. Very specific:

    If these are missing, either generate them first with results-analysis or explicitly state which claims cannot be supported.

    line 112
  7. Very specific:

    Read references/decision-oriented-analysis.md for the expected reasoning depth.

    line 125
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not only attach figures.

    line 129
  9. Very specific:

    Read references/figure-interpretation.md and references/statistical-completeness.md as needed.

    line 137
  10. Distinctive:

    If the current repo is bound to an Obsidian project knowledge base:

    line 141
  11. Very specific:

    create or update Results/Reports/{report-name}.md,

    line 142
  12. Very specific:

    update the matching canonical Results/ note when a durable conclusion is now supported,

    line 144
  13. Distinctive:

    If the repo is not bound:

    line 148
  14. Distinctive:

    write the report as a local markdown artifact in the requested output location or next to the analysis bundle,

    line 149
  15. Distinctive:

    keep the same filename contract,

    line 150
  16. Distinctive:

    stop a weak branch,

    line 158
  17. Distinctive:

    update the active plan.

    line 161

≈ “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

Results Report

Write the complete post-experiment summary report after analysis artifacts are ready.

This skill is for the stage after results-analysis.

Role boundary

results-analysis does

  • strict statistics,
  • real figures,
  • figure interpretation scaffolding,
  • stats appendix.

results-report does

  • complete experiment wrap-up report,
  • decision-oriented narrative,
  • figure-by-figure interpretation inside a coherent structure,
  • limitations, failure cases, and next actions,
  • Obsidian write-back into Results/Reports/.

Do not replace strict analysis with confident prose. If the analysis bundle is missing, first identify the blocker and request or produce the missing bundle.

Default output

The default report is an internal research report, not manuscript prose.

It should be named as:

YYYY-MM-DD--{experiment-line}--r{round}--{purpose}.md

Example:

  • 2026-03-18--freezing--r03--transfer-summary.md
  • 2026-03-18--contrastive-adversarial--r02--ablation-report.md

The note title should be:

{Experiment Line} / Round {N} / {Purpose} / {YYYY-MM-DD}

Read references/report-naming.md before finalizing the filename or note title.

Required frontmatter

---
type: results-report
date: 2026-03-18
experiment_line: freezing
round: 3
purpose: transfer-summary
status: active
source_artifacts:
  - analysis-output/analysis-report.md
  - analysis-output/stats-appendix.md
linked_experiments:
  - Experiments/Freezing-Study.md
linked_results:
  - Results/Freezing-vs-Adapter.md
---

Default report structure

The report must include all sections below.

  1. Executive Summary
  2. Experiment Identity and Decision Context
  3. Setup and Evaluation Protocol
  4. Main Findings
  5. Statistical Validation
  6. Figure-by-Figure Interpretation
  7. Failure Cases / Negative Results / Limitations
  8. What Changed Our Belief
  9. Next Actions
  10. Artifact and Reproducibility Index

Read references/report-structure.md before writing.

Workflow

1. Confirm the report object

Lock these fields first:

  • date,
  • experiment line,
  • round,
  • purpose,
  • linked experiment note,
  • linked durable result note if one already exists.

If round is unknown, do not silently invent a semantic round. Use r00 only as a temporary placeholder and state that it should be normalized later.

2. Read the strict analysis bundle

Minimum required inputs:

  • analysis-report.md
  • stats-appendix.md
  • figure-catalog.md
  • actual figures, if available

If these are missing, either generate them first with results-analysis or explicitly state which claims cannot be supported.

3. Write the report as a decision object

This report is not a transcript of outputs.

Each section must answer a real question:

  • What did we test?
  • What changed numerically?
  • What is actually supported?
  • What failed or remains uncertain?
  • What should we do next?

Read references/decision-oriented-analysis.md for the expected reasoning depth.

4. Interpret figures inside the report

Do not only attach figures.

For each main figure:

  • introduce why it is included,
  • state the key observation,
  • explain the supported interpretation,
  • explain the decision implication.

Read references/figure-interpretation.md and references/statistical-completeness.md as needed.

5. Choose the write target explicitly

If the current repo is bound to an Obsidian project knowledge base:

  • create or update Results/Reports/{report-name}.md,
  • link back to the relevant Experiments/ note,
  • update the matching canonical Results/ note when a durable conclusion is now supported,
  • append a short trace to today's Daily/ note,
  • update .claude/project-memory/<project_id>.md.

If the repo is not bound:

  • write the report as a local markdown artifact in the requested output location or next to the analysis bundle,
  • keep the same filename contract,
  • explicitly say that no Obsidian write-back was attempted.

Internal experiment reports belong next to the work's runs, not in the paper text.

6. End with explicit next actions

The report must end with operational decisions, for example:

  • stop a weak branch,
  • schedule one missing ablation,
  • promote a stable finding into manuscript-facing writing,
  • update the active plan.

Required quality bar

  • The report must be dateable, searchable, and attributable to one experiment line and one round.
  • The report must cite actual evidence from the analysis bundle.
  • The report must include negative results when they matter.
  • The report must separate stable conclusion from tentative interpretation.
  • The report must say what changed in project belief and what should happen next.

Reference files

Load only what is needed:

  • references/report-structure.md
  • references/report-naming.md
  • references/figure-interpretation.md
  • references/statistical-completeness.md
  • references/decision-oriented-analysis.md
  • references/EVIDENCE-PROPAGATION.md
  • examples/example-results-report.md

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.