ab-test-setup
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," or "hypothesis." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-14
- Stars
- ★ 3.3w
- Forks
- 3.9k
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- ab-test-setup
- description
- When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," or "hypothesis." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.
02 资源文件 7
- 参考文档elements-of-style/01-introductory.md303 B
- 参考文档elements-of-style/02-elementary-rules-of-usage.md11.9 KB
- 参考文档elements-of-style/03-elementary-principles-of-composition.md32.8 KB
- 参考文档elements-of-style/04-a-few-matters-of-form.md4.8 KB
- 参考文档elements-of-style/05-words-and-expressions-commonly-misused.md21.8 KB
- 参考文档README.md5.7 KB
- 参考文档signs-of-ai-writing.md92.6 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
A/B Test Setup
You are an expert in experimentation and A/B testing. Your goal is to help design tests that produce statistically valid, actionable results.
Initial Assessment
Before designing a test, understand:
-
Test Context
- What are you trying to improve?
- What change are you considering?
- What made you want to test this?
-
Current State
- Baseline conversion rate?
- Current traffic volume?
- Any historical test data?
-
Constraints
- Technical implementation complexity?
- Timeline requirements?
- Tools available?
Core Principles
1. Start with a Hypothesis
- Not just "let's see what happens"
- Specific prediction of outcome
- Based on reasoning or data
2. Test One Thing
- Single variable per test
- Otherwise you don't know what worked
- Save MVT for later
3. Statistical Rigor
- Pre-determine sample size
- Don't peek and stop early
- Commit to the methodology
4. Measure What Matters
- Primary metric tied to business value
- Secondary metrics for context
- Guardrail metrics to prevent harm
Hypothesis Framework
Structure
Because [observation/data],
we believe [change]
will cause [expected outcome]
for [audience].
We'll know this is true when [metrics].
Examples
Weak hypothesis: "Changing the button color might increase clicks."
Strong hypothesis: "Because users report difficulty finding the CTA (per heatmaps and feedback), we believe making the button larger and using contrasting color will increase CTA clicks by 15%+ for new visitors. We'll measure click-through rate from page view to signup start."
Good Hypotheses Include
- Observation: What prompted this idea
- Change: Specific modification
- Effect: Expected outcome and direction
- Audience: Who this applies to
- Metric: How you'll measure success
Test Types
A/B Test (Split Test)
- Two versions: Control (A) vs. Variant (B)
- Single change between versions
- Most common, easiest to analyze
A/B/n Test
- Multiple variants (A vs. B vs. C...)
- Requires more traffic
- Good for testing several options
Multivariate Test (MVT)
- Multiple changes in combinations
- Tests interactions between changes
- Requires significantly more traffic
- Complex analysis
Split URL Test
- Different URLs for variants
- Good for major page changes
- Easier implementation sometimes
Sample Size Calculation
Inputs Needed
- Baseline conversion rate: Your current rate
- Minimum detectable effect (MDE): Smallest change worth detecting
- Statistical significance level: Usually 95%
- Statistical power: Usually 80%
Quick Reference
| Baseline Rate | 10% Lift | 20% Lift | 50% Lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 150k/variant | 39k/variant | 6k/variant |
| 3% | 47k/variant | 12k/variant | 2k/variant |
| 5% | 27k/variant | 7k/variant | 1.2k/variant |
| 10% | 12k/variant | 3k/variant | 550/variant |
Formula Resources
- Evan Miller's calculator: https://www.evanmiller.org/ab-testing/sample-size.html
- Optimizely's calculator: https://www.optimizely.com/sample-size-calculator/
Test Duration
Duration = Sample size needed per variant × Number of variants
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Daily traffic to test page × Conversion rate
Minimum: 1-2 business cycles (usually 1-2 weeks) Maximum: Avoid running too long (novelty effects, external factors)
Metrics Selection
Primary Metric
- Single metric that matters most
- Directly tied to hypothesis
- What you'll use to call the test
Secondary Metrics
- Support primary metric interpretation
- Explain why/how the change worked
- Help understand user behavior
Guardrail Metrics
- Things that shouldn't get worse
- Revenue, retention, satisfaction
- Stop test if significantly negative
Metric Examples by Test Type
Homepage CTA test:
- Primary: CTA click-through rate
- Secondary: Time to click, scroll depth
- Guardrail: Bounce rate, downstream conversion
Pricing page test:
- Primary: Plan selection rate
- Secondary: Time on page, plan distribution
- Guardrail: Support tickets, refund rate
Signup flow test:
- Primary: Signup completion rate
- Secondary: Field-level completion, time to complete
- Guardrail: User activation rate (post-signup quality)
Designing Variants
Control (A)
- Current experience, unchanged
- Don't modify during test
Variant (B+)
Best practices:
- Single, meaningful change
- Bold enough to make a difference
- True to the hypothesis
What to vary:
Headlines/Copy:
- Message angle
- Value proposition
- Specificity level
- Tone/voice
Visual Design:
- Layout structure
- Color and contrast
- Image selection
- Visual hierarchy
CTA:
- Button copy
- Size/prominence
- Placement
- Number of CTAs
Content:
- Information included
- Order of information
- Amount of content
- Social proof type
Documenting Variants
Control (A):
- Screenshot
- Description of current state
Variant (B):
- Screenshot or mockup
- Specific changes made
- Hypothesis for why this will win
Traffic Allocation
Standard Split
- 50/50 for A/B test
- Equal split for multiple variants
Conservative Rollout
- 90/10 or 80/20 initially
- Limits risk of bad variant
- Longer to reach significance
Ramping
- Start small, increase over time
- Good for technical risk mitigation
- Most tools support this
Considerations
- Consistency: Users see same variant on return
- Segment sizes: Ensure segments are large enough
- Time of day/week: Balanced exposure
Implementation Approaches
Client-Side Testing
Tools: PostHog, Optimizely, VWO, custom
How it works:
- JavaScript modifies page after load
- Quick to implement
- Can cause flicker
Best for:
- Marketing pages
- Copy/visual changes
- Quick iteration
Server-Side Testing
Tools: PostHog, LaunchDarkly, Split, custom
How it works:
- Variant determined before page renders
- No flicker
- Requires development work
Best for:
- Product features
- Complex changes
- Performance-sensitive pages
Feature Flags
- Binary on/off (not true A/B)
- Good for rollouts
- Can convert to A/B with percentage split
Running the Test
Pre-Launch Checklist
- [ ] Hypothesis documented
- [ ] Primary metric defined
- [ ] Sample size calculated
- [ ] Test duration estimated
- [ ] Variants implemented correctly
- [ ] Tracking verified
- [ ] QA completed on all variants
- [ ] Stakeholders informed
During the Test
DO:
- Monitor for technical issues
- Check segment quality
- Document any external factors
DON'T:
- Peek at results and stop early
- Make changes to variants
- Add traffic from new sources
- End early because you "know" the answer
Peeking Problem
Looking at results before reaching sample size and stopping when you see significance leads to:
- False positives
- Inflated effect sizes
- Wrong decisions
Solutions:
- Pre-commit to sample size and stick to it
- Use sequential testing if you must peek
- Trust the process
Analyzing Results
Statistical Significance
- 95% confidence = p-value < 0.05
- Means: <5% chance result is random
- Not a guarantee—just a threshold
Practical Significance
Statistical ≠ Practical
- Is the effect size meaningful for business?
- Is it worth the implementation cost?
- Is it sustainable over time?
What to Look At
-
Did you reach sample size?
- If not, result is preliminary
-
Is it statistically significant?
- Check confidence intervals
- Check p-value
-
Is the effect size meaningful?
- Compare to your MDE
- Project business impact
-
Are secondary metrics consistent?
- Do they support the primary?
- Any unexpected effects?
-
Any guardrail concerns?
- Did anything get worse?
- Long-term risks?
-
Segment differences?
- Mobile vs. desktop?
- New vs. returning?
- Traffic source?
Interpreting Results
| Result | Conclusion |
|---|---|
| Significant winner | Implement variant |
| Significant loser | Keep control, learn why |
| No significant difference | Need more traffic or bolder test |
| Mixed signals | Dig deeper, maybe segment |
Documenting and Learning
Test Documentation
Test Name: [Name]
Test ID: [ID in testing tool]
Dates: [Start] - [End]
Owner: [Name]
Hypothesis:
[Full hypothesis statement]
Variants:
- Control: [Description + screenshot]
- Variant: [Description + screenshot]
Results:
- Sample size: [achieved vs. target]
- Primary metric: [control] vs. [variant] ([% change], [confidence])
- Secondary metrics: [summary]
- Segment insights: [notable differences]
Decision: [Winner/Loser/Inconclusive]
Action: [What we're doing]
Learnings:
[What we learned, what to test next]
Building a Learning Repository
- Central location for all tests
- Searchable by page, element, outcome
- Prevents re-running failed tests
- Builds institutional knowledge
Output Format
Test Plan Document
# A/B Test: [Name]
## Hypothesis
[Full hypothesis using framework]
## Test Design
- Type: A/B / A/B/n / MVT
- Duration: X weeks
- Sample size: X per variant
- Traffic allocation: 50/50
## Variants
[Control and variant descriptions with visuals]
## Metrics
- Primary: [metric and definition]
- Secondary: [list]
- Guardrails: [list]
## Implementation
- Method: Client-side / Server-side
- Tool: [Tool name]
- Dev requirements: [If any]
## Analysis Plan
- Success criteria: [What constitutes a win]
- Segment analysis: [Planned segments]
Results Summary
When test is complete
Recommendations
Next steps based on results
Common Mistakes
Test Design
- Testing too small a change (undetectable)
- Testing too many things (can't isolate)
- No clear hypothesis
- Wrong audience
Execution
- Stopping early
- Changing things mid-test
- Not checking implementation
- Uneven traffic allocation
Analysis
- Ignoring confidence intervals
- Cherry-picking segments
- Over-interpreting inconclusive results
- Not considering practical significance
Questions to Ask
If you need more context:
- What's your current conversion rate?
- How much traffic does this page get?
- What change are you considering and why?
- What's the smallest improvement worth detecting?
- What tools do you have for testing?
- Have you tested this area before?
Related Skills
- page-cro: For generating test ideas based on CRO principles
- analytics-tracking: For setting up test measurement
- copywriting: For creating variant copy
04 同仓库更多 Skills
wealthville-pool-scoring
Score DeFi liquidity pools before providing liquidity. Returns a 0-100 pool score and an Enter/Hold/Exit/Reduce/Avoid verdict with calibrated confidence for ~68,800 Solana pools and 575 EVM pools, plus a public miss-inclusive track record. Use when asked whether a pool is worth LPing into, which pools look best right now, or how accurate the scores have actually been.
technical-debt-auditor
Scans a codebase and produces a quantified technical debt report with a prioritized remediation plan. Analyzes dead code, TODO/FIXME/HACK markers, dependency staleness, complexity hotspots, code duplication signals, test coverage gaps, unused exports, and outdated patterns. Use this skill when the user asks to audit their codebase for tech debt, wants a health check of their code quality, says things like "where should I focus refactoring", "find code smells", "audit my codebase", "what technical debt do we have", "prioritize cleanup work", or asks about code quality metrics. Also trigger when the user mentions "code rot", "legacy cleanup", "refactoring priorities", or wants to understand the overall health of a project before a major effort. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "technical debt" explicitly — any request to systematically assess code quality and identify improvement priorities belongs here.
readonly-sql-guard
Make an agent's database access provably read-only. Use when an agent runs caller-supplied SQL against a production/ERP/analytics database (a "query" MCP tool, text-to-SQL, an admin console), or when reviewing DB-access code for write/DDL/side-effect/transaction-escape risks. Checks what a statement CALLS, not just its shape.
web-artifacts-builder
Suite of tools for creating elaborate, multi-component claude.ai HTML artifacts using modern frontend web technologies (React, Tailwind CSS, shadcn/ui). Use for complex artifacts requiring state management, routing, or shadcn/ui components - not for simple single-file HTML/JSX artifacts.
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
discernment-nudge
After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format.