# Mk Ab Test Setup

> Plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment with statistical rigor. Triggers (EN) "A/B test", "split test", "experiment", "test this change", "variant copy", "multivariate test", "MVT", "hypothesis", "should I test this", "which version is better", "test two versions", "statistical significance", "sample size", "how long should I run this test"; (FR) "test A/B", "test fractionne", "experimentation", "tester cette variante", "quelle version est meilleure", "taille d'echantillon", "significativite statistique", "combien de temps lancer le test". Use whenever someone compares two approaches and wants to measure which performs better. For tracking implementation, see mk-analytics-tracking. For page-level conversion optimization, see mk-page-cro.

- Skill: `agentik-os/mk-ab-test-setup` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add agentik-os/mk-ab-test-setup`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/agentik-os/mk-ab-test-setup/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Marketing & Growth
- Author: agentik-os (https://skillmd.com/u/agentik-os)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/agentik-os/mk-ab-test-setup

---


# 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.

> **Portability note:** the optional context file (`.agents/product-marketing-context.md`) is a convenience, not a dependency — if absent (any host, not just the OmegaOS VPS), skip straight to the Task-Specific Questions. No VPS-only infra is required.

## Single-voice craft (do NOT parallelize)

This is ONE coherent deliverable — an experiment design — written in a single expert experimentation voice. Do **not** fan out into parallel sub-agents or competing drafts: a test plan with split hypotheses, mismatched sample-size math, and inconsistent metric definitions is worse than one rigorous plan. Reason linearly: context -> hypothesis -> metrics -> sample size -> variant -> rollout -> analysis plan.

Craft upgrades to apply every time:
- **One variable, one hypothesis, one primary metric.** If the user wants to vary several things, push back: name the single highest-leverage change to test first, and queue the rest. Multivariate only when traffic clearly supports it (see Sample Size).
- **Power the test before you design the variant.** Compute required sample size and expected duration (traffic/day -> days-to-significance) up front. If the math says >6-8 weeks, say so plainly and propose a bolder change or a higher-traffic surface instead of a test that can never reach significance.
- **Pre-register the stopping rule.** State sample size, MDE, primary metric, and the no-peeking commitment before launch — written down — so the analysis is honest and the "peeking problem" can't creep in.

## Output contract

Produce a single **Experiment Brief** containing, in order:
1. **Hypothesis** — in the Because/we believe/will cause/for/we'll know format.
2. **Metrics** — primary (1), secondary, guardrail.
3. **Sample size + duration** — per-variant N, traffic/day, estimated days to significance, MDE.
4. **Variant spec** — the single change, control vs. treatment, traffic allocation.
5. **Implementation note** — client- vs. server-side + tool.
6. **Analysis plan** — significance threshold, segments to check, decision matrix.

**VERIFY before delivering:** (a) exactly one independent variable and one primary metric; (b) sample-size number is present and matches the baseline/lift the user gave (or stated assumptions if not); (c) a concrete stopping rule and no-peeking commitment are written; (d) guardrail metrics are named. If any is missing, the brief is incomplete — fill it before calling it done.

**Evidence / no-hallucination guardrail:** never invent the user's baseline conversion rate, traffic, or current numbers — if unknown, ask (Task-Specific Questions) or label the figure an explicit assumption. Cite which calculator/table produced the sample size. Do not claim a test "will win"; state the predicted effect as a hypothesis to be measured.

## Initial Assessment

**Check for product marketing context first:**
If `.agents/product-marketing-context.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.

Before designing a test, understand:

1. **Test Context** - What are you trying to improve? What change are you considering?
2. **Current State** - Baseline conversion rate? Current traffic volume?
3. **Constraints** - Technical complexity? Timeline? 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

### 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].
```

### Example

**Weak**: "Changing the button color might increase clicks."

**Strong**: "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."

---

## Test Types

| Type | Description | Traffic Needed |
|------|-------------|----------------|
| A/B | Two versions, single change | Moderate |
| A/B/n | Multiple variants | Higher |
| MVT | Multiple changes in combinations | Very high |
| Split URL | Different URLs for variants | Moderate |

---

## Sample Size

### Quick Reference

| Baseline | 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 |

**Calculators:**
- [Evan Miller's](https://www.evanmiller.org/ab-testing/sample-size.html)
- [Optimizely's](https://www.optimizely.com/sample-size-calculator/)

**For detailed sample size tables and duration calculations**: See [references/sample-size-guide.md](references/sample-size-guide.md)

---

## 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

### Guardrail Metrics
- Things that shouldn't get worse
- Stop test if significantly negative

### Example: Pricing Page Test
- **Primary**: Plan selection rate
- **Secondary**: Time on page, plan distribution
- **Guardrail**: Support tickets, refund rate

---

## Designing Variants

### What to Vary

| Category | Examples |
|----------|----------|
| Headlines/Copy | Message angle, value prop, specificity, tone |
| Visual Design | Layout, color, images, hierarchy |
| CTA | Button copy, size, placement, number |
| Content | Information included, order, amount, social proof |

### Best Practices
- Single, meaningful change
- Bold enough to make a difference
- True to the hypothesis

---

## Traffic Allocation

| Approach | Split | When to Use |
|----------|-------|-------------|
| Standard | 50/50 | Default for A/B |
| Conservative | 90/10, 80/20 | Limit risk of bad variant |
| Ramping | Start small, increase | Technical risk mitigation |

**Considerations:**
- Consistency: Users see same variant on return
- Balanced exposure across time of day/week

---

## Implementation

### Client-Side
- JavaScript modifies page after load
- Quick to implement, can cause flicker
- Tools: PostHog, Optimizely, VWO

### Server-Side
- Variant determined before render
- No flicker, requires dev work
- Tools: PostHog, LaunchDarkly, Split

---

## Running the Test

### Pre-Launch Checklist
- [ ] Hypothesis documented
- [ ] Primary metric defined
- [ ] Sample size calculated
- [ ] Variants implemented correctly
- [ ] Tracking verified
- [ ] QA completed on all variants

### During the Test

**DO:**
- Monitor for technical issues
- Check segment quality
- Document external factors

**Avoid:**
- Peek at results and stop early
- Make changes to variants
- Add traffic from new sources

### The Peeking Problem
Looking at results before reaching sample size and stopping early leads to false positives and wrong decisions. Pre-commit to sample size and 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

### Analysis Checklist

1. **Reach sample size?** If not, result is preliminary
2. **Statistically significant?** Check confidence intervals
3. **Effect size meaningful?** Compare to MDE, project impact
4. **Secondary metrics consistent?** Support the primary?
5. **Guardrail concerns?** Anything get worse?
6. **Segment differences?** Mobile vs. desktop? New vs. returning?

### 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 |

---

## Documentation

Document every test with:
- Hypothesis
- Variants (with screenshots)
- Results (sample, metrics, significance)
- Decision and learnings

**For templates**: See [references/test-templates.md](references/test-templates.md)

---

## Common Mistakes

### Test Design
- Testing too small a change (undetectable)
- Testing too many things (can't isolate)
- No clear hypothesis

### Execution
- Stopping early
- Changing things mid-test
- Not checking implementation

### Analysis
- Ignoring confidence intervals
- Cherry-picking segments
- Over-interpreting inconclusive results

---

## Task-Specific Questions

1. What's your current conversion rate?
2. How much traffic does this page get?
3. What change are you considering and why?
4. What's the smallest improvement worth detecting?
5. What tools do you have for testing?
6. 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