CC experimentation-analytics
How to read experiment results without fooling yourself. Confidence intervals, p-values, multiple testing, sequential testing, CUPED, heterogeneous treatment effects, ratio metrics, network effects, dashboard reconciliation, and the interpretation failures that produce confidently wrong shipping decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is reading a finished experiment result panel and about to make a ship, kill, or iterate decision, or when an experiment number does not match the dashboard number. Triggers on read experiment results, result panel, ship or kill decision, p-value, confidence interval, statistical significance, multiple testing, peeking, sequential testing, CUPED, variance reduction, heterogeneous treatment effects, ratio metric, network effects, inconclusive test, experiment versus dashboard mismatch. Use `experiment-design` instead when the test has not run yet and the question is hypothesis, sample size, duration, or what to test.
How to read experiment results without fooling yourself.
As a process C 51/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 9. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 8624 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "catalog_summary" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "display_order"
Process rating: all ten parameters 51/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 9 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Execution cost. Instruction body is 8624 tokens: crowds the task out of the window
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 85Steps. 89 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 17 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 964: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 89 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (7 of 7)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 69.