Skip to content
Back to skills

Experiment Design Pipeline

ASecurity

Run an end-to-end workflow that chains the skills `refine-research` and `experiment-design`. Use when the user wants a one-shot pipeline from vague research direction to focused final proposal plus detailed experiment roadmap, or asks to build a pipeline, do it end-to-end, or generate both the method and experiment plan together.

  • 103 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 4 views
  • Added June 6, 2026
businessgobash

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned June 6, 2026

npx -y skills add GRIND-Lab-Core/night_owl_research_agent --skill experiment-design-pipeline --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Experiment Design Pipeline?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Experiment Design Pipeline
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/grind-lab-core-experiment-design-pipeline/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/grind-lab-core-experiment-design-pipeline)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: experiment-design-pipeline
description: 'Run an end-to-end workflow that chains the skills `refine-research` and `experiment-design`. Use when the user wants a one-shot pipeline from vague research direction to focused final proposal plus detailed experiment roadmap, or asks to build a pipeline, do it end-to-end, or generate both the method and experiment plan together.'
argument-hint: [topic-or-scope]
allowed-tools: Bash(*), Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Agent
---

# Experiment Design Pipeline: End-to-End Method and Experiment Planning

Refine and concretize: **$ARGUMENTS**

## Overview

Use this skill when the user does not want to stop at a refined method. The goal is to produce a coherent package that includes:

- a problem-anchored, elegant final proposal
- the review history explaining why the method is focused
- a detailed experiment roadmap tied to the paper's claims
- a compact pipeline summary that says what to run next

This skill composes two existing workflows:

1. `refine-research` for method refinement
2. `experiment-design` for claim-driven validation planning

For stage-specific detail, read these sibling skills only when needed:

- `../refine-research/SKILL.md`
- `../experiment-design/SKILL.md`

## Core Rule

Do not plan a large experiment suite on top of an unstable method. First stabilize the thesis. Then turn the stable thesis into experiments.

## Default Outputs

Refinement stage (written by `refine-research`, under `output/refine-logs/`):

- `output/refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md`
- `output/refine-logs/REFINE_REPORT.md`
- `output/refine-logs/SCORE_HISTORY.md`
- `output/refine-logs/REFINE_STATE.json` and per-round files

Experiment stage (written by `experiment-design`, under `output/`):

- `output/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md`
- `output/EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md`

Pipeline integration (written by this skill):

- `output/EXP_PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md`

Do not move the subskill outputs into a different directory; downstream skills (`deploy-experiment`, `result-to-claim`, etc.) expect these canonical paths.

## Workflow

### Phase 0: Triage the Starting Point

At the very start, read the most relevant existing files if they exist (use `Read`; skip silently if missing). This mirrors the file-reading step at the start of each subskill so the pipeline never re-does stable work:

- `CLAUDE.md` — project dashboard, control flags, canonical output paths
- `handoff.json` — if present, check `pipeline.stage` and `recovery.resume_skill`
- `output/LIT_REVIEW_REPORT.md` — consolidated literature review
- `output/IDEA_REPORT.md` — ranked idea candidates
- `output/refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md` — prior refined proposal, if any
- `output/refine-logs/REFINE_REPORT.md` — prior refinement history
- `output/refine-logs/REFINE_STATE.json` — checkpoint for an in-progress refinement
- `output/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md` — prior experiment plan, if any

From these plus `$ARGUMENTS`, extract the problem, rough approach, constraints, resources, and target venue.

Then decide:

- If `FINAL_PROPOSAL.md` is missing, stale, or materially different from the current request, run the full `refine-research` stage.
- If a `REFINE_STATE.json` exists with `status: in_progress`, resume `refine-research` from that checkpoint rather than restarting.
- If the proposal is already strong and aligned, reuse it and jump to experiment planning.
- If in doubt, prefer re-running `refine-research` rather than planning experiments for the wrong method.

### Phase 1: Method Refinement Stage

Run the `refine-research` workflow and keep its four guiding principles intact:

- do not lose the original problem — freeze the Problem Anchor
- prefer the smallest adequate mechanism
- one paper, one dominant contribution (plus at most one supporting contribution)
- modern leverage (LLM / VLM / Diffusion / RL / distillation / inference-time scaling) is a prior, not a decoration

Respect the subskill's constants: `MAX_ROUNDS = 5`, `SCORE_THRESHOLD = 9`, `MAX_PRIMARY_CLAIMS = 2`, `MAX_CORE_EXPERIMENTS = 3`, `MAX_NEW_TRAINABLE_COMPONENTS = 2`. Do not override these from the pipeline unless the user asks.

Exit this stage only when these are explicit in `FINAL_PROPOSAL.md`:

- the final method thesis
- the dominant contribution
- the complexity intentionally rejected
- the key claims and must-run ablations
- the remaining risks, if any
- a fully populated **Experiment Design Handoff** section (hard gate inherited from `refine-research`)

If the verdict is still `REVISE`, continue into experiment planning only if the remaining weaknesses are clearly documented in `REFINE_REPORT.md`.

### Phase 2: Planning Gate

Before the experiment stage, write a short gate check:

- What is the final method thesis?
- What is the dominant contribution?
- What complexity was intentionally rejected?
- Which reviewer concerns still matter for validation?
- Is a frontier primitive central, optional, or absent?

If these answers are not crisp, tighten the final proposal first.

### Phase 3: Experiment Planning Stage

Run the `experiment-design` workflow grounded in the refinement outputs (which that skill also reads in its own Phase 0):

- `output/refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md`
- `output/refine-logs/REFINE_REPORT.md`
- `output/LIT_REVIEW_REPORT.md` and `output/IDEA_REPORT.md` if present

Respect the subskill's constants: `MAX_PRIMARY_CLAIMS = 2`, `MAX_CORE_BLOCKS = 5`, `MAX_BASELINE_FAMILIES = 3`, `DEFAULT_SEEDS = 3`.

Ensure the experiment plan covers:

- the main anchor result
- novelty isolation
- a simplicity / elegance (deletion) check
- a frontier necessity check if a modern primitive is central (skip explicitly otherwise)
- a failure analysis or qualitative diagnosis block
- run order, compute / data budget, and decision gates
- separation of must-run vs nice-to-have

The subskill writes `output/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md` and `output/EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md`. Do not rewrite those files from this pipeline — only read them to build the summary.

### Phase 4: Integration Summary

Write `output/EXP_PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md`:

```markdown
# Pipeline Summary

**Problem**: [problem]
**Final Method Thesis**: [one sentence]
**Final Verdict**: [READY / REVISE / RETHINK]
**Date**: [today]

## Final Deliverables
- Proposal: `output/refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md`
- Refinement report: `output/refine-logs/REFINE_REPORT.md`
- Score history: `output/refine-logs/SCORE_HISTORY.md`
- Experiment plan: `output/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md`
- Experiment tracker: `output/EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md`

## Contribution Snapshot
- Dominant contribution:
- Optional supporting contribution:
- Explicitly rejected complexity:

## Must-Prove Claims
- [Claim 1]
- [Claim 2]

## First Runs to Launch
1. [Run]
2. [Run]
3. [Run]

## Main Risks
- [Risk]:
- [Mitigation]:

## Next Action
- Proceed to `/deploy-experiment`
```

### Phase 5: Present a Brief Summary to the User

```
Pipeline complete.

Method output:
- output/refine-logs/FINAL_PROPOSAL.md
- output/refine-logs/REFINE_REPORT.md

Experiment output:
- output/EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md
- output/EXPERIMENT_TRACKER.md

Pipeline summary:
- output/EXP_PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md

Best next step:
- /deploy-experiment
```

## Key Rules

- **Large file handling**: If the Write tool fails due to file size, immediately retry using Bash (`cat << 'EOF' > file`) to write in chunks. Do NOT ask the user for permission — just do it silently.

- Do not let the experiment plan override the Problem Anchor.
- Do not widen the paper story after method refinement unless a missing validation block is truly necessary.
- Reuse the same claims across `FINAL_PROPOSAL.md`, `EXPERIMENT_PLAN.md`, and `EXP_PIPELINE_SUMMARY.md`.
- Keep the main paper story compact.
- If the method is intentionally simple, defend that simplicity in the experiment plan rather than adding new components.
- If the method uses a modern LLM / VLM / Diffusion / RL primitive, make its necessity test explicit.
- If the method does not need a frontier primitive, say that clearly and avoid forcing one.
- Do not relocate subskill outputs. Refinement artifacts belong under `output/refine-logs/`; experiment artifacts belong directly under `output/`.
- Prefer the staged skills when the user only needs one stage; use this skill for the integrated flow.

## Composing with Other Skills

```
/experiment-design-pipeline -> one-shot method + experiment planning
/refine-research   -> method refinement only
/experiment-design   -> experiment planning only
/deploy-experiment    -> execution
```

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.