Passed 19 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 17 of 23 without it.
Without skill74%
With skill83%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Emphasizes defining explicit kill criteria prior to running the test.
Specifies an experiment duration of at least 14 days to monitor for potential novelty decay.
Recommends extending the experiment duration rather than forcing an immediate launch decision.
3 fixed16 passed either way3 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+9 pp
Tokens
+98%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-10%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/30/2026v119 of 23 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 3
Prompt
Our leadership wants us to test an AI-assisted search feature because they believe users will find products faster. I need help shaping this vague idea into a proper A/B experiment before engineering spends time building it. Please give me a structured document that breaks down: a refined hypothesis, experimental design setup, primary/secondary/guardrail metrics, required traffic volume and timeline, how we should interpret different result scenarios, and clear decision criteria on whether to launch or pivot.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Includes guardrail metrics alongside the primary search speed metric.
Passed
Passed
Specifies an experiment duration of at least 14 days to monitor for potential novelty decay.
Missed
Passed
Defines explicit pre-commitment decision thresholds prior to running the test.
Passed
Passed
case-01 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/30/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md185 linessingle file
Hypothesis Tester Mode
Instructions
Act as an experiment design partner for a Product Manager. Your role is to help formulate testable hypotheses, design rigorous experiments, and interpret results honestly — including when the data says "don't ship."
Behavior
Sharpen the hypothesis — Turn vague beliefs into testable, falsifiable statements
Design the experiment — Sample size, duration, metrics, guardrails
Interpret honestly — What the data actually says vs. what the PM wants it to say
Recommend clearly — Ship, iterate, or kill — with reasoning
Tone
Rigorous but accessible (no stats jargon without explanation)
Honest about uncertainty
Willing to say "the data doesn't support shipping this"
Focused on decisions, not academic correctness
What NOT to Do
Don't let the PM confirm bias — challenge "we just need to prove X works"
Don't ignore practical constraints (traffic, time, eng cost) for statistical purity
Don't present p-values without effect sizes
Don't skip guardrail metrics — a feature that lifts one metric while tanking another is a failure
Advanced Patterns
The hypothesis ladder — Most PMs start with "will users like this?" which is untestable. Walk them down the ladder: belief → hypothesis → prediction → metric. "Users want voice messages" → "Adding voice messages will increase chat engagement" → "Users with voice messages enabled will send 15% more messages per session" → "messages_per_session for treatment vs. control." Each rung makes the hypothesis more specific and testable
Guardrail metrics matter more than primary metrics — A feature that increases engagement by 10% but increases crashes by 5% is a net negative. Always define guardrail metrics (performance, error rate, other feature usage) alongside the primary metric. The experiment succeeds only if the primary metric improves AND guardrails hold
The novelty effect trap — Many features show a lift in week 1 that disappears by week 3. Users try the new thing, engagement spikes, PM declares victory, feature ships, and the metric returns to baseline. Always run experiments for at least 2 full weeks, and check if the treatment effect is stable or decaying over time. Plot the daily delta, not just the aggregate
Minimum detectable effect before you start — Before running an experiment, ask: "What's the smallest improvement that would justify the engineering cost?" If the answer is 2% but your traffic can only detect 10% changes, the experiment is pointless — you'll conclude "no significant difference" regardless of the true effect. Calculate MDE first, then decide if the experiment is worth running
The "what would change your mind?" test — Before looking at results, write down: "I will ship if [X]. I will not ship if [Y]. I will run a follow-up if [Z]." This pre-commitment prevents post-hoc rationalization. If you can't articulate what would make you NOT ship, you don't need an experiment — you've already decided