mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

experiment-readout

Analyse a finished A/B test and write an honest results readout with real statistics.

First seen Jun 28, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill experiment-readout

Summary

  • Analyse a finished A/B test and write an honest results readout with real statistics.
  • Use when asked to read out an A/B test, analyse experiment results, check if a result is statistically significant, or decide ship/no-ship from test data.
  • Produces a readout — the computed lift, p-value & confidence interval, a significance verdict, guardrail check, and a clear ship / no-ship / iterate recommendation.
  • Includes a stdlib significance calculator.

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills · top by installs.

npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

Browse all from mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Repository health

Stars 1.3K
License LICENSE
Default branch main
Open issues 7
Status Active

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 3,998 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 476 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 5 installs

SKILL.md

Experiment Readout Skill

A test result is only a decision if the statistics are sound — and "variant looks higher" is not a result. This skill computes the lift, the p-value, and a confidence interval from the raw counts, checks the guardrails, and writes an honest readout with a clear ship/no-ship call — flagging the traps (peeking, underpowered, novelty, a significant but tiny effect) that make teams ship noise.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

  • The metric & data — for a conversion test: users and conversions per variant (control vs. treatment). For a continuous metric: mean, SD, and n per variant.
  • The hypothesis — what you expected and the minimum effect that matters.
  • Guardrail metrics — what shouldn't get worse (revenue, latency, retention).
  • Test setup — planned sample size/duration, and whether it ran to plan (for the peeking check).

Output Format

Experiment Readout: [test name]

1. Result — computed (use the helper): control vs. treatment rate, absolute & relative lift, p-value, and the confidence interval on the difference.

Variant N Conversions Rate
Control
Treatment

→ Lift: X% (CI: [a%, b%]) · p = 0.0xx

2. Verdict — significant at the stated bar or not, and whether the effect is big enough to matter (a significant +0.2% may not be worth the complexity). Distinguish statistical from practical significance.

3. Guardrails — did anything you promised not to harm move? A win that tanks a guardrail isn't a win.

4. Validity checks — was it run to the planned sample (no peeking/early-stopping)? Sample-ratio mismatch? Novelty/seasonality? Call out anything that undermines the result.

5. Recommendationship / no-ship / iterate / re-run, with the reason. If inconclusive, say so — "no significant difference" is a valid, useful result, not a failure to spin.

Programmatic Helper

scripts/ab_significance.py (stdlib only) computes the two-proportion z-test, p-value, lift, and CI:

# python3 ab_significance.py <control_n> <control_conv> <treat_n> <treat_conv>
python3 scripts/ab_significance.py 10000 800 10000 880
python3 scripts/ab_significance.py 10000 800 10000 880 --json

Quality Checks

  • Lift, p-value, and a confidence interval are computed (not just "higher")
  • Statistical significance AND practical significance are both assessed
  • Guardrail metrics are checked, not just the primary
  • Validity is checked: ran to planned n, no peeking, no sample-ratio mismatch
  • An inconclusive result is reported honestly, not spun into a win
  • The recommendation is explicit (ship/no-ship/iterate/re-run)

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not call significance by eye — compute the p-value and CI; a higher number isn't a result
  • Do not ignore the confidence interval — a CI spanning zero (or huge) means you don't actually know the effect
  • Do not confuse statistical with practical significance — a tiny significant lift may not be worth shipping
  • Do not trust a peeked/early-stopped test — stopping when it looks good inflates false positives massively
  • Do not spin a null result — "no detectable difference" is honest and often the right call

Based On

Frequentist A/B analysis — two-proportion z-test, confidence intervals, guardrails, and the peeking/practical-significance pitfalls.