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
- rpraharaj/ai-sdlctheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Pthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engineword for word, first seen Oct 9, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- Pthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine★ 504100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- rpraharaj/ai-sdlc★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository270 other files it gives its agents.
- abstract-structureSkill
- adjudicate-exchangeSkill
- adjust-abstraction-scopeSkill
- adversarial-deliberationSkill
- aggregate-rankingSkill
- analogical-discoverySkill
- analyze-constraints-readinessSkill
- analyze-experiment-resultsSkill
- analyze-future-scenariosSkill
- analyze-heterogeneitySkill
- analyze-interventionSkill
- analyze-leaderboard-dynamicsSkill
- analyze-patent-citation-networkSkill
- analyze-scaling-regimeSkill
- analyze-temporal-trajectorySkill
- apply-perturbationSkill
- apply-question-frameworkSkill
- apply-separation-principleSkill
- apply-stage-gateSkill
- apply-veto-filterSkill
- appreciative-reframeSkill
- assess-construct-validitySkill
- assess-evidence-saturationSkill
- assess-goal-feasibilitySkill
- assess-patent-claim-scopeSkill
- assess-patent-legal-statusSkill
- assess-prior-art-and-claimsSkill
- assess-problem-wickednessSkill
- assess-publication-biasSkill
- assess-question-qualitySkill
- assess-ranking-consistencySkill
- assess-readiness-dimensionSkill
- assess-removabilitySkill
- assess-sensitivitySkill
- assess-system-boundarySkill
- assumption-stress-testSkill
- atomize-claimSkill
- atomize-conceptSkill
- attach-evidence-to-relationSkill
- audit-benchmark-validitySkill
- audit-convergence-independenceSkill
- audit-data-contaminationSkill
- audit-explanatory-compressionSkill
- audit-reporting-qualitySkill
- audit-structural-equivalenceSkill
- audit-structure-consistencySkill
- audit-study-validitySkill
- audit-validator-independenceSkill
- biologize-problemSkill
- biomimetic-transferSkill
- build-concept-fanSkill
- build-current-reality-treeSkill
- build-domain-ontologySkill
- build-failure-chainSkill
- build-noncircularity-matrixSkill
- calibrate-adversarial-confidenceSkill
- calibrate-probability-forecastSkill
- canonicalize-entitySkill
- categorize-evidenceSkill
- challenge-assumptionSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 14
Use after a hypothesis has an operational construct and discriminating prediction.
- Distinctive: line 32
Do not perform called SOP operations inline.
- Very specific: line 35
If the resource envelope or feasibility constraints cannot support an executable design, consider analyze-constraints-readiness before …
- Very specific: line 38
If the proposed metric or validator may share artifacts, labels, or assumptions with the system under test, consider …
≈ “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.
Files
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_inputExecution protocol
Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.
- You MUST load skill
identify-variablesto operationalize the outcome, factors, controls, and their functional roles. You MUST load skillenumerate-dimension-valuesto define admissible levels or perturbation values. If the resource envelope or feasibility constraints cannot support an executable design, consideranalyze-constraints-readinessbefore committing to a mode. - Choose
factorial,ablation,comparison,scaling, orrobustnessmode. - You MUST load skill
specify-metricsto preregister metrics, estimands, directionality, and decision thresholds. You MUST load skillestimate-sample-sizeto derive the sample or repetition requirement. You MUST load skillselect-statistical-methodto 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, consideraudit-validator-independencebefore freezing the analysis plan. - You MUST load skill
construct-design-matrixto construct the runnable matrix for the selected mode. You MUST load skilldesign-randomness-protocolto define seeds, repetitions, and propagation rules. You MUST load skillspecify-execution-environmentto capture interpretation-relevant hardware, software, data, configuration, and versions. You MUST load skillspecify-reproducibility-protocolto define and test the intended reproduction level. You MUST load skilloptimize-design-under-budgetto 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-resultsmay 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 skillmap-ablation-componentsto 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-designHARD-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
| source | source line | kind | source criterion | ||||||
| experiment-design | 45 | textual | ## HARD-GATE | ||||||
| experiment-design | 47 | textual | Before entering this campaign, the following must be satisfied: | ||||||
| experiment-design | 64 | textual | 4. How to ensure reproducibility | ||||||
| experiment-design | 79 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||||
| experiment-design | 83 | numeric | \ | Micro \ | < 10 \ | 3 \ | 20 \ | Fractional factorial or single ablation \ | |
| experiment-design | 84 | numeric | \ | Small \ | 10-100 \ | 5 \ | 50 \ | Full factorial on key factors \ | |
| experiment-design | 85 | numeric | \ | Medium \ | 100-1000 \ | 8 \ | 200 \ | Multi-strategy composition \ | |
| experiment-design | 86 | numeric | \ | Large \ | > 1000 \ | Unlimited \ | Unlimited \ | Full design space exploration \ | |
| experiment-design | 95 | textual | ## Minimum Yield | ||||||
| experiment-design | 97 | textual | Every campaign invocation must produce at minimum: | ||||||
| ablation-design | 43 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||||
| ablation-design | 47 | numeric | \ | Systematic (leave-one-out) \ | 3-8 \ | N + 2 \ | Standard component analysis \ | ||
| ablation-design | 48 | numeric | \ | Replacement \ | 3-8 \ | 2N + 2 \ | Need to distinguish "removal" vs "simplification" \ | ||
| ablation-design | 49 | numeric | \ | Combinatorial (selected) \ | 4-6 \ | ~2N \ | Suspected interactions between components \ | ||
| ablation-design | 50 | numeric | \ | Combinatorial (full) \ | 3-4 \ | 2^N \ | Small systems, need complete picture \ | ||
| ablation-design | 51 | numeric | \ | Conditional \ | 3-6 \ | N * conditions \ | Context-dependent contributions \ | ||
| comparison-design | 34 | textual | - Fair Comparison Protocol (Bouthillier 2021): Control all confounds, same compute budget, same tuning effort. | ||||||
| comparison-design | 47 | textual | 6. reproducibility-protocol (tactic) -> Ensure all results are reproducible | ||||||
| comparison-design | 50 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||||
| comparison-design | 54 | numeric-table | \ | Minimal \ | 1 SOTA + 1 simple \ | 1 \ | 3 \ | 6 \ | |
| comparison-design | 55 | numeric | \ | Standard \ | 2-3 baselines \ | 2-3 \ | 5 \ | 30-45 \ | |
| comparison-design | 56 | numeric | \ | Comprehensive \ | 4+ baselines \ | 3-5 \ | 5-10 \ | 100+ \ | |
| comparison-design | 57 | numeric-table | \ | Publication-ready \ | All relevant \ | 5+ \ | 10+ \ | 200+ \ | |
| scaling-design | 43 | numeric | 2. level-specification -> Define scale points (geometric progression, typically 4-8 points) | ||||||
| scaling-design | 49 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||||
| scaling-design | 53 | numeric | \ | Data scaling \ | 4-6 \ | 3 \ | 12-18 \ | Low (same model, subset data) \ | |
| scaling-design | 54 | numeric | \ | Model scaling \ | 4-8 \ | 2-3 \ | 8-24 \ | High (different model sizes) \ | |
| scaling-design | 55 | numeric | \ | Compute-optimal \ | 6-10 per iso-FLOP \ | 1-2 \ | 12-20 \ | Very high \ | |
| scaling-design | 56 | numeric | \ | Inference scaling \ | 5-10 \ | 5 \ | 25-50 \ | Low (inference only) \ | |
| robustness-design | 50 | textual | ## Budget Gate | ||||||
| robustness-design | 54 | numeric | \ | Single perturbation \ | 1 \ | 3-5 \ | 3-5 \ | Quick sanity check \ | |
| robustness-design | 55 | numeric | \ | Multi-perturbation \ | 3-5 \ | 3 each \ | 9-15 \ | Standard robustness eval \ | |
| robustness-design | 56 | numeric | \ | Adversarial sweep \ | 1 attack \ | 5-10 epsilon \ | 5-10 \ | Adversarial robustness curve \ | |
| robustness-design | 57 | numeric | \ | Comprehensive \ | 5+ types \ | 3-5 each \ | 50+ \ | Publication-ready robustness \ | |
| robustness-design | 58 | numeric-table | \ | Cross-domain \ | N domains \ | 1 \ | N \ | Transfer evaluation \ | |
| statistical-method-selection | 30 | numeric-table | \ | Normal data, 2 groups, paired \ | Paired t-test \ | ||||
| statistical-method-selection | 31 | numeric-table | \ | Normal data, 2 groups, unpaired \ | Welch's t-test \ | ||||
| statistical-method-selection | 32 | numeric-table | \ | Normal data, 3+ groups \ | ANOVA + post-hoc (Tukey HSD) \ | ||||
| statistical-method-selection | 33 | numeric-table | \ | Non-normal, 2 groups \ | Wilcoxon signed-rank / Mann-Whitney U \ | ||||
| statistical-method-selection | 34 | numeric-table | \ | Non-normal, 3+ groups \ | Kruskal-Wallis + Dunn's test \ | ||||
| statistical-method-selection | 36 | numeric-table | \ | Want probability of superiority \ | Bayesian comparison (Benavoli 2017) \ | ||||
| statistical-method-selection | 48 | textual | - Is the significance threshold pre-registered (not chosen post-hoc)? | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 17 | textual | # Tactic: Reproducibility Protocol | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 21 | textual | 1. Assess Reproducibility Requirements -> Determine level needed (exact, statistical, conceptual) | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 22 | textual | 2. seed-protocol-design -> Design random seed strategy for all stochastic components | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 24 | textual | 4. Define Verification Plan -> How to confirm reproducibility (re-run subset, cross-machine test) | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 25 | textual | 5. Document Non-Determinism -> Identify and document unavoidable sources of variance | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 29 | textual | \ | Reproducibility Level \ | Requirement \ | When to Use \ | |||
| reproducibility-protocol | 37 | textual | - Are all random seeds documented and controllable? | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 38 | textual | - Is the full software environment captured (versions, dependencies)? | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 39 | textual | - Are hardware-specific non-determinisms identified (GPU atomics, cuDNN)? | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 40 | textual | - Is there a verification protocol (re-run N times, check variance)? | ||||||
| reproducibility-protocol | 44 | textual | - Is there a plan for cross-machine reproducibility testing? | ||||||
| budget-constrained-design | 34 | numeric | \ | < 10 \ | One-factor-at-a-time or Plackett-Burman screening \ | ||||
| budget-constrained-design | 35 | numeric | \ | 10-30 \ | Fractional factorial (Resolution III-IV) \ | ||||
| budget-constrained-design | 36 | numeric | \ | 30-60 \ | Fractional factorial (Resolution V) or Taguchi \ | ||||
| budget-constrained-design | 37 | numeric | \ | 60-120 \ | Full factorial on top factors + screening on rest \ | ||||
| budget-constrained-design | 38 | numeric-table | \ | 120+ \ | Full factorial or RSM with replication \ | ||||
| budget-constrained-design | 53 | textual | - 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.
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
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.

