Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

experiment-protocol

Design and run controlled experiments using the experiment-registry MCP server — domain-agnostic, pluggable, mechanically enforced. Use when you need evidence that a change actually improves behaviour.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md5.2 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Experiment Protocol

Drives the experiment-registry MCP server through a controlled experiment lifecycle. The MCP owns the state machine, validates artefacts, and enforces methodology. This skill is the caller — not the logic.

Core Problem

Uncontrolled testing contaminates results. The most common failure mode is embedding success criteria inside the input the subject under test receives — this measures instruction-following ability, not the quality of the instructions themselves. A second failure mode is changing multiple variables between runs, which makes it impossible to attribute any result to any cause. The third is writing scoring criteria after seeing output, which lets expected results shape the rubric rather than the other way around.

The experiment-registry MCP server enforces the correct protocol mechanically. Claude's role is to produce artefacts and submit them — not to manage the workflow.

Phase 1 — Setup (collaborative)

Work with the user to identify the experiment type before starting the execution loop.

flowchart TD
    Infer[Infer domain from current task context] --> List["Call list_experiment_types()"]
    List --> BestMatch[Identify best-matching type from descriptions]
    BestMatch --> Inspect["Call inspect_experiment_type(name)"]
    Inspect --> Propose[Propose type and first-step requirements to user]
    Propose --> Q{User accepts?}
    Q -->|Yes| Start["Call start_experiment(base, context, extensions)"]
    Q -->|Adjust| Adjust[User specifies different base or inline extensions]
    Adjust --> Start
    Start --> Ready[Receive experiment ID and first step — enter Phase 2]

The extensions parameter is optional. Pass it when the user specifies additions to the base type (e.g., extra checklist items or artefacts not in the registry definition).

Phase 2 — Execution (mechanical, MCP-driven)

No discussion during execution. Step through the MCP workflow autonomously.

flowchart TD
    GetStep["Call get_current_step(experiment_id)"] --> TermCheck{status is complete<br>or inconclusive?}
    TermCheck -->|Yes| Handoff[Experiment already done — see Retrospective Handoff]
    TermCheck -->|No| StepDetail[MCP returns step + checklist + required artefacts]
    StepDetail --> Human{REQUIRES_HUMAN_INPUT flagged?}
    Human -->|Yes| Surface[Surface the question to the user and wait for answer]
    Surface --> Resubmit[Include answer in artefacts and resubmit]
    Human -->|No| Produce[Produce the required artefacts]
    Produce --> Complete["Call complete_step(experiment_id, step_id, artefacts)"]
    Resubmit --> Complete
    Complete --> MCPResult{MCP response?}
    MCPResult -->|Missing artefacts| Fix[Produce the missing artefacts and resubmit]
    MCPResult -->|Validation errors| FixV[Fix validation issues and resubmit]
    Fix --> Complete
    FixV --> Complete
    MCPResult -->|Next step| GetStep
    MCPResult -->|complete| HandoffC[Experiment complete — see Retrospective Handoff]
    MCPResult -->|inconclusive| Report[Report iteration limit reached — summarise what changed]

The MCP advances state, validates artefact presence, and determines when the experiment is done. Do not attempt to track or infer step state from memory.

Read-Only Status

When the user calls /experiment-protocol status {id}, call get_current_step(experiment_id) and display the result without calling complete_step(). This does not interrupt or advance the execution loop.

Anti-Patterns

The MCP enforces these mechanically, but understanding why they are prohibited helps produce correct artefacts.

Embedding criteria in the input artefact — writing expected outcomes or scoring hints inside the fixture or input the subject receives. This tests instruction-following, not instruction quality. The rubric and fixture are separate artefacts for this reason.

Changing multiple things between iterations — if two things change simultaneously, the result cannot be attributed to either. The MCP enforces one-change-per-iteration via the iterate step.

Writing rubric criteria after seeing output — post-hoc criteria are shaped by what the subject produced. The MCP requires rubric artefacts before the baseline step runs.

Reporting only passing runs — every iteration is recorded. The MCP log captures all runs, including regressions.

Changing the control input between iterations — the task prompt, fixture, and baseline conditions are frozen after the baseline run. Changing them starts a new experiment.

Scoring by impression — every criterion is binary. Call get_current_step() to retrieve the rubric and score each criterion explicitly for each run.

Retrospective Handoff

When the MCP returns complete or inconclusive status:

  1. Call get_experiment_summary(experiment_id) — returns artefact file paths and final status.
  2. Pass the file paths to @retrospective-analyst for post-experiment analysis.

The analyst reads artefacts directly from disk. No reformatting or summarisation required.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Add automated documentation updater to any Claude skill. Creates a Python sync script that downloads upstream docs, processes markdown for AI consumption, and maintains local cache with configurable refresh. Collects template variables, then delegates implementation through 5-phase workflow. Use when adding auto-updating reference documentation to plugins or skills.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills67Updated Oct 20, 2026

SAM-style feature initiation workflow — discovery through codebase analysis, architecture spec, task decomposition, validation, and context manifest. Use when a user asks to add a feature, plan a feature, or convert an idea into an executable SAM plan.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills67Updated Oct 20, 2026

Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, including navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, or automating any browser task. Triggers include requests to "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "take a screenshot", "scrape data from a page", "test this web app", "login to a site", "automate browser actions", or any task requiring programmatic web interaction.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills67Updated Oct 20, 2026

Browser automation for AI agents using the agent-browser CLI and Playwright. Use when navigating pages, filling forms, clicking buttons, taking screenshots, extracting data, testing web apps, logging into sites, or automating any browser task. Triggers on "open a website", "fill out a form", "click a button", "scrape data", "test this web app", "automate browser actions", or any programmatic web interaction request.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills67Updated Oct 20, 2026

Runs the description-drift experiment — spawns all Claude Code agents simultaneously to collect self-reported capabilities, then compares them against static frontmatter descriptions to reveal how reliable orchestrator routing based on descriptions actually is. Use when measuring description drift across the agent fleet, re-running the capability collection experiment, analyzing a specific agent's self-reported capabilities, or auditing whether frontmatter descriptions accurately reflect agent behavior.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills67Updated Oct 20, 2026

Create or adapt Claude Code agent definitions. Use when creating an agent, changing subagent configuration, selecting agent scope, or designing a specialized delegation role.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills67Updated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by Jamie-BitFlight

Report a problem with this skill