Results for “experiments”

Multiagent AI system for scientific research assistance that automates research workflows from data analysis to publication. This skill should be used when generating research ideas from datasets, developing research methodologies, executing computational experiments, performing literature searches, or generating publication-ready papers in LaTeX format. Supports end-to-end research pipelines with customizable agent orchestration.

Orchestrates end-to-end autonomous AI research projects using a two-loop architecture. The inner loop runs rapid experiment iterations with clear optimization targets. The outer loop synthesizes results, identifies patterns, and steers research direction. Routes to domain-specific skills for execution, supports continuous agent operation via Claude Code /loop and OpenClaw heartbeat, and produces research presentations and papers. Use when starting a research project, running autonomous experiments, or managing a multi-hypothesis research effort.

Debug LLM applications using the Phoenix CLI. Fetch traces, analyze errors, structure trace review with open coding and axial coding, inspect datasets, review experiments, query annotation configs, and use the GraphQL API. Use whenever the user is analyzing traces or spans, investigating LLM/agent failures, deciding what to do after instrumenting an app, building failure taxonomies, choosing what evals to write, or asking "what's going wrong", "what kinds of mistakes", or "where do I focus" — even without naming a technique.

Route LangSmith work into one workflow packet before touching SDK code. Use when the user needs LangSmith tracing, offline evals, annotation/review queues, prompt-registry decisions, audit/gap review, or cross-service trace propagation for an LLM app or agent workflow. Choose one packet: trace-debug, eval, review, prompt-registry, propagation, or audit. Triggers on: LangSmith, LangChain tracing, `@traceable` / `traceable`, `wrap_openai` / `wrapOpenAI`, datasets, experiments, annotation queues, feedback criteria, Prompt Hub, run trees, trace IDs, or production confidence for an AI feature. Not for generic SLO/alert design, non-LangSmith deployment orchestration, or runtime guardrails outside LangSmith.

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).