本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

experiment-design

Design product experiments to test hypotheses. Use when the user says "run an experiment", "A/B test this", "build-measure-learn", "validate this assumption", "test this hypothesis", "we don't know if this will work", "minimum viable test", "lean experiment", or wants to reduce risk before fully building a feature - even if they don't explicitly say "experiment".

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Overview

Based on The Lean Startup by Eric Ries. The core insight: startups (and product teams) don't fail from lack of execution - they fail from executing on the wrong plan. The build-measure-learn loop is how you find the right plan faster. Every feature is a hypothesis. Every release is an experiment. Validated learning - not shipped features - is the unit of progress.

Workflow

Step 1: State the hypothesis

Format: "We believe [action/feature] will cause [user behavior change], resulting in [metric change], because [assumption]."

Example: "We believe adding a progress bar to onboarding will cause more users to complete setup, resulting in a 15% increase in activation rate, because users abandon when they can't see how much is left."

The "because" is critical - it forces you to name the assumption you're testing.

Step 2: Identify the riskiest assumption

Most hypotheses have multiple assumptions embedded. Find the one that, if wrong, makes the whole hypothesis collapse.

List assumptions - rank by risk - test the riskiest one first.

Step 3: Design the minimum viable test

What's the cheapest, fastest way to test the riskiest assumption?

Ries's ladder of experiment types (least to most expensive):

  1. Customer interview - ask 5 users if the problem exists
  2. Fake door / 404 test - show the feature, measure click rate before building
  3. Concierge MVP - do the job manually for a few users
  4. Wizard of Oz - appear automated, run manually behind the scenes
  5. A/B test - build both versions, split traffic
  6. Full release - ship to everyone

Start as low on the ladder as possible. Only move up when the cheaper test is insufficient.

Step 4: Define success criteria before running

Set the threshold before you see results. This prevents moving the goalposts.

"We will consider this experiment successful if [metric] changes by [amount] within [time period] with [sample size]."

Step 5: Calculate required sample size

For A/B tests: use a significance calculator. Undersized tests produce false results.

  • Minimum detectable effect: what's the smallest change that matters?
  • Baseline conversion rate: what's the current rate?
  • Statistical significance: 95% standard (p < 0.05)

Step 6: Run the experiment and measure

  • Don't peek at results early (peeking inflates false positives)
  • Measure the primary metric and guard metrics
  • Document what you observe, not what you expected

Step 7: Extract validated learning

Whatever the result:

  • Confirmed - assumption was right, proceed with confidence
  • Refuted - assumption was wrong, pivot or kill
  • Inconclusive - sample too small or test too short, iterate

Ries: a failed experiment that teaches you something is more valuable than a successful one that teaches you nothing.

Anti-Patterns

1. HiPPO-driven decisions instead of experiments Bad: "The CEO thinks we should add X, so we're adding X." Good: "The CEO thinks X will increase retention. Let's run a 2-week experiment with 10% of users."

2. Moving the goalposts Bad: Setting a 20% lift as success, seeing 8%, calling it a win anyway. Good: Success criteria set before the experiment runs. Results are binary: met or not met.

3. Testing too many variables at once Bad: Redesigning the entire onboarding and A/B testing it. Good: Change one variable per experiment. Otherwise you can't attribute the result.

4. Skipping the concierge step Bad: Building a full automated feature to test an unvalidated assumption. Good: Do it manually for 10 users first. If the manual version doesn't work, the automated one won't either.

Quality Checklist

  • Hypothesis follows "We believe X will cause Y because Z" format
  • Riskiest assumption identified explicitly
  • Minimum viable test chosen (as low on the ladder as possible)
  • Success criteria defined before running
  • Sample size calculated for quantitative tests
  • Guard metrics defined (what must not get worse)
  • Validated learning documented regardless of outcome

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Design clean and consistent APIs. Use when the user says "design an API", "API design review", "design these endpoints", "REST API for X", "GraphQL schema", "API contract", "how should this endpoint work", "review my API design", or wants to create or improve an API interface - even if they don't explicitly say "API design".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

qa-aman のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する