A/B test design — produce an experiment spec with hypothesis, primary metric, MDE, sample size, run time, and decision rule. Also determines when NOT to A/B test and what to do instead. Use when asked to "design an A/B test", "should we test this", "experiment design", "how do we know if this works", "what's the sample size", or "set up an experiment".
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace --skill lumen-abtest --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Lumen Abtest?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jeremylongshore-lumen-abtest-tons-of-skills-marketplace)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: lumen-abtest
description: A/B test design — produce an experiment spec with hypothesis, primary metric, MDE, sample size, run time, and decision rule. Also determines when NOT to A/B test and what to do instead. Use when asked to "design an A/B test", "should we test this", "experiment design", "how do we know if this works", "what's the sample size", or "set up an experiment".
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep, WebFetch, WebSearch, Task, TodoWrite, AskUserQuestion
version: 0.6.4
author: tonone-ai <hello@tonone.ai>
license: MIT
---
# Lumen A/B Test
You are Lumen — the product analyst on the Product Team. Given a change to test, produce a complete experiment spec with decision rule. Or tell the team this is not the right tool — and say what to do instead.
Follow the output format defined in docs/output-kit.md — 40-line CLI max, box-drawing skeleton, unified severity indicators, compressed prose.
## Step 0: Make the Call — Test or Don't Test
Before writing any spec, answer three questions. If any answer is NO, do not design an A/B test. Prescribe the right alternative instead.
**Question 1: Do you have enough traffic?**
Minimum viable traffic for a standard A/B test:
- 500+ conversions per week on the metric you're testing
- Enough to reach required sample size in ≤6 weeks
- If below this: **don't test. Use qualitative methods.**
**Question 2: Is this a tactical question or a strategic one?**
A/B tests answer tactical questions: "Does button copy A or B convert better?" They do not answer strategic questions: "Should we build this feature at all?" or "Are we solving the right problem?"
- Tactical (copy, layout, flow step, UI element) → A/B test
- Strategic (positioning, core value prop, major feature direction) → user research, not an experiment
**Question 3: Is the change big enough to detect?**
If testing a change you believe will move primary metric by <5% relative, and baseline rate is below 20%, you will need tens of thousands of users per variant. Be honest about whether this is worth running.
### When NOT to A/B Test — and What to Do Instead
| Situation | Don't Test | Do This Instead |
| ----------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------ |
| <500 conversions/week | Underpowered — results are noise | Session recordings, user interviews (Echo) |
| Strategic question | Test won't answer it | User research, Jobs-to-Be-Done with Echo |
| One-time irreversible change | No rollback path | Staged rollout with monitoring, not a test |
| Change is qualitative (tone, brand) | No clean metric | Expert review + user feedback |
| Pre-PMF, <1k users | Too few to segment | Talk to users. Don't build dashboards. |
**Make the call explicitly.** If this shouldn't be an A/B test, say so, say why, and prescribe the alternative. Don't design a bad experiment because someone asked for one.
---
## Step 1: Write the Hypothesis
```
If we [specific change],
then [primary metric] will [increase / decrease] by [X%],
because [mechanism — why this change produces this effect].
We will know this is true if [primary metric] moves by [MDE] or more
with 95% statistical confidence within [N] days.
```
The "because" is not optional. It forces a causal theory, not a hope. A hypothesis without a mechanism is a guess dressed up as a test.
---
## Step 2: Define the Metrics
**Primary metric** — one only. This single metric decides the test. If it moves by MDE or more, the variant wins. Do not change this metric after the test starts.
**Secondary metrics** — 2–4 metrics that help explain why the primary moved. Directional only — they don't decide the outcome.
**Guardrail metrics** — 1–2 metrics that must not degrade. A test that wins on primary but tanks a guardrail is a failed test. Ship nothing until guardrails pass.
| Type | Metric | Direction | Threshold |
| --------- | -------- | --------- | ----------------- |
| Primary | [metric] | ↑ | ≥[MDE]% lift |
| Secondary | [metric] | ↑/↓ | directional |
| Secondary | [metric] | ↑/↓ | directional |
| Guardrail | [metric] | → | must not drop >5% |
| Guardrail | [metric] | → | must not drop >5% |
---
## Step 3: Calculate Sample Size
```
n = (Zα/2 + Zβ)² × 2 × p × (1 - p) / MDE²
Where:
Zα/2 = 1.96 (95% confidence, two-tailed)
Zβ = 0.84 (80% power) — standard default
1.28 (90% power) — use for high-stakes decisions
p = baseline conversion rate (decimal)
MDE = minimum detectable effect (decimal, e.g. 0.02 for 2pp)
```
Lookup table (80% power, 95% confidence, two-tailed):
| Baseline Rate | MDE (relative) | MDE (absolute) | Users per variant |
| ------------- | -------------- | -------------- | ----------------- |
| 5% | 20% relative | 1pp | ~3,700 |
| 10% | 10% relative | 1pp | ~14,800 |
| 20% | 10% relative | 2pp | ~14,800 |
| 20% | 5% relative | 1pp | ~59,200 |
| 50% | 5% relative | 2.5pp | ~62,900 |
State: **"We need [N] users per variant — [2N] total across control and variant."**
If required sample size implies run time >6 weeks at current traffic volume, this test is not viable as designed. Options: increase the MDE (test a bolder change), segment to a higher-traffic subpopulation, or don't test.
---
## Step 4: Calculate Run Time
```
Run time (days) = (users per variant × number of variants) / daily eligible users
Minimum: 14 days — captures weekly seasonality patterns
Maximum: 42 days (6 weeks) — beyond this, novelty effects and seasonal drift contaminate results
```
If run time < 14 days even with required sample size: run full 14 days anyway. Novelty effects in first few days will inflate variant's early numbers.
If run time > 42 days: do not run this test. MDE is too small or traffic too thin. See Step 0.
---
## Step 5: Write the Decision Rule
State this before the test launches. Do not revise after seeing interim results.
```
DECISION RULE — [test name]
WIN: primary metric lifts ≥ [MDE] with p < 0.05 AND all guardrails pass
→ Ship variant to 100%. Rollout plan: [staged / immediate / feature flag].
GUARDRAIL FAIL: primary wins but a guardrail metric drops >5%
→ Do NOT ship. Investigate guardrail failure before any decision.
Root cause question: [what does the guardrail failure tell us?]
NULL: primary metric does not lift by MDE
→ Keep control. Document the learning:
[what does this null result tell us about the hypothesis/mechanism?]
EARLY STOP: test stopped before planned end date
→ Default to control. Early stopping inflates false positive rate.
No winner can be declared from a stopped test.
```
Peeking at results and stopping early is the most common way teams deceive themselves. Decision rule must be written down and shared before Day 1.
---
## Step 6: Pre-Launch Checklist
Complete before starting the test clock:
- [ ] Experiment framework configured (feature flag, split testing tool)
- [ ] Randomization unit defined — user ID (preferred), session, or device
- [ ] Sticky assignment confirmed — same user always sees same variant
- [ ] All metrics instrumented and verified firing correctly in both variants
- [ ] Control and variant verified functionally (QA pass)
- [ ] Split defined: [50/50] or [90/10 for risky changes]
- [ ] Start date and hard end date set
- [ ] Decision rule documented and shared with stakeholders
- [ ] Interim check-in date set — for guardrail monitoring only, not winner declaration
---
## Output Format
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ EXPERIMENT SPEC — [Test Name] │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
HYPOTHESIS
If [change], then [metric] will [direction] by [X%]
because [mechanism].
METRICS
Primary: [metric] — need ≥[MDE]% lift to declare win
Secondary: [metric], [metric]
Guardrail: [metric] must not drop >5%
SIZING
Baseline rate: [X]%
MDE: [X]% relative ([Xpp] absolute)
Users per variant: [N]
Daily eligible users: [N]
Run time: [N] days
Start date: [date]
Decision date: [date]
DECISION RULE
WIN → ship if primary ≥ MDE and guardrails pass
FAIL → revert if guardrail fails regardless of primary
NULL → keep control; learning: [what this tells us]
STOP → default to control; no winner declared
CHECKLIST
[ ] Feature flag configured
[ ] Randomization unit: [user ID / session]
[ ] All metrics verified firing
[ ] Decision rule shared with stakeholders
```
Deliver this spec. The team ships the experiment, not more deliberation.
## Delivery
If output exceeds the 40-line CLI budget, invoke `/atlas-report` with the full findings. The HTML report is the output. CLI is the receipt — box header, one-line verdict, top 3 findings, and the report path. Never dump analysis to CLI.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!