agentleFS
yogsoth-aiyogsoth-ai/de-anthropocentric-research-engine/skills/design-experiment/SKILL.md

design-experiment

Skill505 starsChanged 50 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Translate a falsifiable hypothesis into a statistically defensible experiment. Factorial, ablation, comparison, scaling, and robustness designs are modes, not strategy nodes.

2 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

4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use after a hypothesis has an operational construct and discriminating prediction.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not perform called SOP operations inline.

    line 32
  3. Very specific:

    If the resource envelope or feasibility constraints cannot support an executable design, consider analyze-constraints-readiness before …

    line 35
  4. Very specific:

    If the proposed metric or validator may share artifacts, labels, or assumptions with the system under test, consider …

    line 38

≈ “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

design-experiment

Purpose

Translate a falsifiable hypothesis into a statistically defensible experiment. Factorial, ablation, comparison, scaling, and robustness are modes.

When to use / not applicable

Use after a hypothesis has an operational construct and discriminating prediction. Not applicable when the hypothesis or measurable outcome is absent.

Input contract

mode_contracts:
  factorial: &experiment_input
    required: [falsifiable_hypothesis, outcome, factors, constraints]
    optional: [baseline, candidate_models, budget, robustness_axes]
    constraints: [analysis_plan_must_be_preregistered]
  ablation: *experiment_input
  comparison: *experiment_input
  scaling: *experiment_input
  robustness: *experiment_input

Execution protocol

Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.

  1. You MUST load skill identify-variables to operationalize the outcome, factors, controls, and their functional roles. You MUST load skill enumerate-dimension-values to define admissible levels or perturbation values. If the resource envelope or feasibility constraints cannot support an executable design, consider analyze-constraints-readiness before committing to a mode.
  2. Choose factorial, ablation, comparison, scaling, or robustness mode.
  3. You MUST load skill specify-metrics to preregister metrics, estimands, directionality, and decision thresholds. You MUST load skill estimate-sample-size to derive the sample or repetition requirement. You MUST load skill select-statistical-method to select the inference or estimation method before observing outcomes; specify power and the stopping rule. If the proposed metric or validator may share artifacts, labels, or assumptions with the system under test, consider audit-validator-independence before freezing the analysis plan.
  4. You MUST load skill construct-design-matrix to construct the runnable matrix for the selected mode. You MUST load skill design-randomness-protocol to define seeds, repetitions, and propagation rules. You MUST load skill specify-execution-environment to capture interpretation-relevant hardware, software, data, configuration, and versions. You MUST load skill specify-reproducibility-protocol to define and test the intended reproduction level. You MUST load skill optimize-design-under-budget to select a feasible information-efficient design under the declared resource envelope; include resource and failure checks. Once the design has produced observations and the task changes from planning to inference, analyze-experiment-results may be the better next tactic.

Mode branches

For comparison or robustness, You MUST load skill select-experimental-baseline to choose a controlled baseline matched to the claim.

  • factorial: vary multiple factors in a structured design so main effects and interactions are estimable within the declared resource envelope.
  • ablation: remove or replace components systematically to attribute the outcome to individual parts and suspected interactions. You MUST load skill map-ablation-components to define ablatable units, dependencies, and legal removal or replacement operations.
  • comparison: evaluate a target against controlled baselines with matched confounds, compute, tuning effort, and preregistered tests.
  • scaling: instantiate geometric or otherwise justified scale points to test how the outcome changes across the declared regime.
  • robustness: perturb relevant conditions or inputs and measure whether the claimed effect survives the defined stress space.

Output contract

mode_contracts:
  factorial:
    produces: [factor_level_matrix, factor_level_catalog, estimands_main_effects_interactions, metric_significance_plan, sample_power_plan]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions]
  ablation:
    produces: [ablation_matrix, baseline_anchors_full_minimal, attribution_contrasts, component_interaction_plan]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions]
  comparison:
    produces: [controlled_baseline_comparison, matched_confound_controls, seed_environment_protocol, statistical_comparison_plan, reproducibility_protocol]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions]
  scaling:
    produces: [scaling_axes, geometric_scale_points, scaling_experiment_grid, curve_fit_plan, scale_budget_plan]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions]
  robustness:
    produces: [perturbation_stress_matrix, severity_axes, baseline_comparison, degradation_metrics, survival_criteria]
    delta_fields: [findings, decisions, uncertainties, open_questions]

Thresholds and quality gates

  • experiment-design HARD-GATE and Budget Gate remain mandatory; no exit before declared minimum yield.
  • Resource and run-scale gates are relative to the declared resource envelope and eligible factor/condition space; record numerator, denominator, batch increment, stopping reason, and source references.
  • Scale, ablation, comparison, and robustness coverage must reach a justified relative floor over the declared design space; do not substitute an unreasoned fixed run count.
  • Factor levels, comparison baseline, statistical test, significance threshold, sample-size rationale, and stopping rule must all be explicit.
  • Significance threshold must be pre-registered, not chosen post-hoc.
  • Budget-constrained design must report at least one feasible design under the stated resource envelope.
  • Scaling mode retains the source criterion of a geometric progression, typically 4-8 points, while evaluating coverage relative to the declared scale domain. Relative audit: declared universe = eligible scale domain; numerator = scale points instantiated; batch increment = points added per design pass; stopping reason = predeclared coverage or saturation rule; source references = scaling-design ledger and design records; direction/threshold rationale = geometric spacing preserves regime sensitivity, with 4-8 retained as the source band.

Failure and counterexamples

Reject post-hoc factor selection, outcome leakage, missing control, unpowered comparison, or a design whose claimed inference exceeds its measured outcome.

Provenance map

experiment-design, factor-level-design, ablation-design, comparison-design, scaling-design, robustness-design, statistical-method-selection, reproducibility-protocol, budget-constrained-design; mode-specific steps retained, agent dispatch removed.

Legacy context checkpoint / Delta notes

Record hypothesis ID, design mode, factors/levels, analysis plan, budget, preregistration status, and unresolved threats.

Preserved source criteria ledger

sourcesource linekindsource criterion
experiment-design45textual## HARD-GATE
experiment-design47textualBefore entering this campaign, the following must be satisfied:
experiment-design64textual4. How to ensure reproducibility
experiment-design79textual## Budget Gate
experiment-design83numeric\Micro \< 10 \3 \20 \Fractional factorial or single ablation \
experiment-design84numeric\Small \10-100 \5 \50 \Full factorial on key factors \
experiment-design85numeric\Medium \100-1000 \8 \200 \Multi-strategy composition \
experiment-design86numeric\Large \> 1000 \Unlimited \Unlimited \Full design space exploration \
experiment-design95textual## Minimum Yield
experiment-design97textualEvery campaign invocation must produce at minimum:
ablation-design43textual## Budget Gate
ablation-design47numeric\Systematic (leave-one-out) \3-8 \N + 2 \Standard component analysis \
ablation-design48numeric\Replacement \3-8 \2N + 2 \Need to distinguish "removal" vs "simplification" \
ablation-design49numeric\Combinatorial (selected) \4-6 \~2N \Suspected interactions between components \
ablation-design50numeric\Combinatorial (full) \3-4 \2^N \Small systems, need complete picture \
ablation-design51numeric\Conditional \3-6 \N * conditions \Context-dependent contributions \
comparison-design34textual- Fair Comparison Protocol (Bouthillier 2021): Control all confounds, same compute budget, same tuning effort.
comparison-design47textual6. reproducibility-protocol (tactic) -> Ensure all results are reproducible
comparison-design50textual## Budget Gate
comparison-design54numeric-table\Minimal \1 SOTA + 1 simple \1 \3 \6 \
comparison-design55numeric\Standard \2-3 baselines \2-3 \5 \30-45 \
comparison-design56numeric\Comprehensive \4+ baselines \3-5 \5-10 \100+ \
comparison-design57numeric-table\Publication-ready \All relevant \5+ \10+ \200+ \
scaling-design43numeric2. level-specification -> Define scale points (geometric progression, typically 4-8 points)
scaling-design49textual## Budget Gate
scaling-design53numeric\Data scaling \4-6 \3 \12-18 \Low (same model, subset data) \
scaling-design54numeric\Model scaling \4-8 \2-3 \8-24 \High (different model sizes) \
scaling-design55numeric\Compute-optimal \6-10 per iso-FLOP \1-2 \12-20 \Very high \
scaling-design56numeric\Inference scaling \5-10 \5 \25-50 \Low (inference only) \
robustness-design50textual## Budget Gate
robustness-design54numeric\Single perturbation \1 \3-5 \3-5 \Quick sanity check \
robustness-design55numeric\Multi-perturbation \3-5 \3 each \9-15 \Standard robustness eval \
robustness-design56numeric\Adversarial sweep \1 attack \5-10 epsilon \5-10 \Adversarial robustness curve \
robustness-design57numeric\Comprehensive \5+ types \3-5 each \50+ \Publication-ready robustness \
robustness-design58numeric-table\Cross-domain \N domains \1 \N \Transfer evaluation \
statistical-method-selection30numeric-table\Normal data, 2 groups, paired \Paired t-test \
statistical-method-selection31numeric-table\Normal data, 2 groups, unpaired \Welch's t-test \
statistical-method-selection32numeric-table\Normal data, 3+ groups \ANOVA + post-hoc (Tukey HSD) \
statistical-method-selection33numeric-table\Non-normal, 2 groups \Wilcoxon signed-rank / Mann-Whitney U \
statistical-method-selection34numeric-table\Non-normal, 3+ groups \Kruskal-Wallis + Dunn's test \
statistical-method-selection36numeric-table\Want probability of superiority \Bayesian comparison (Benavoli 2017) \
statistical-method-selection48textual- Is the significance threshold pre-registered (not chosen post-hoc)?
reproducibility-protocol17textual# Tactic: Reproducibility Protocol
reproducibility-protocol21textual1. Assess Reproducibility Requirements -> Determine level needed (exact, statistical, conceptual)
reproducibility-protocol22textual2. seed-protocol-design -> Design random seed strategy for all stochastic components
reproducibility-protocol24textual4. Define Verification Plan -> How to confirm reproducibility (re-run subset, cross-machine test)
reproducibility-protocol25textual5. Document Non-Determinism -> Identify and document unavoidable sources of variance
reproducibility-protocol29textual\Reproducibility Level \Requirement \When to Use \
reproducibility-protocol37textual- Are all random seeds documented and controllable?
reproducibility-protocol38textual- Is the full software environment captured (versions, dependencies)?
reproducibility-protocol39textual- Are hardware-specific non-determinisms identified (GPU atomics, cuDNN)?
reproducibility-protocol40textual- Is there a verification protocol (re-run N times, check variance)?
reproducibility-protocol44textual- Is there a plan for cross-machine reproducibility testing?
budget-constrained-design34numeric\< 10 \One-factor-at-a-time or Plackett-Burman screening \
budget-constrained-design35numeric\10-30 \Fractional factorial (Resolution III-IV) \
budget-constrained-design36numeric\30-60 \Fractional factorial (Resolution V) or Taguchi \
budget-constrained-design37numeric\60-120 \Full factorial on top factors + screening on rest \
budget-constrained-design38numeric-table\120+ \Full factorial or RSM with replication \
budget-constrained-design53textual- Are early stopping criteria pre-defined (not post-hoc)?

Context checkpoint / Delta notes

Record hypothesis ID, design mode, factors/levels, analysis plan, budget, preregistration status, and unresolved threats.

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.