Trustworthy Experiment Insights
Use this skill to decide whether an experiment result is believable enough to
shape a product or engineering decision. It focuses on false positives, false
negatives, power, replication, meta-analysis, stratified sampling, covariate
adjustment, and suspicious result review.
Source Traceability
Primary source: Next-Level A/B Testing by Leemay Nassery. Guidance is
transformed and paraphrased from Chapter 6 on false positives and negatives,
meta-analysis, metric sensitivity, stratified random sampling, covariate
adjustments, replication, longer runs, and statistical power.
Related skills:
ab-test-results-readout for standard experiment reporting.
experiment-sensitivity-optimization for improving precision before or
during experiment design.
experiment-verification-monitoring for operational validity checks.
Reference Routing
| Need |
Read |
| Insight-quality concepts |
references/core/knowledge.md |
| Credibility and follow-up rules |
references/core/rules.md |
| Result-review scenarios |
references/core/examples.md |
| Step-by-step credibility review |
workflows/review-experiment-credibility.md |
Workflow
- Confirm the experiment was operationally valid enough to interpret.
- Check power, practical significance, and whether metrics were underpowered.
- Look for false positive risk: suspicious lift, many comparisons, early stop,
weak prior, or contradiction with prior experiments.
- Look for false negative risk: noisy metrics, small sample, low sensitivity,
or over-broad metric choice.
- Compare with similar experiments or run meta-analysis when available.
- Recommend launch, replicate, extend, investigate, or reject the result.
Output Format
# Experiment Insight Credibility Review
## Result Under Review
[Experiment, metric, observed result, and proposed decision.]
## Credibility Assessment
[Trust | Trust with caveats | Replicate | Extend | Investigate | Do not trust]
## Evidence
| Check | Finding | Risk |
|-------|---------|------|
## Follow-Up
- Replication needed:
- Longer run needed:
- Meta-analysis/comparison:
- Variance reduction opportunity:
## Decision Guidance
[What decision can be made now, and what should wait.]
Quality Bar
- Do not celebrate a result before checking whether it could be a false positive.
- Do not dismiss a flat result before checking power and sensitivity.
- Do not compare against prior experiments without noting differences in
population, metric, design, and timing.
- Do not use statistical checks to hide operational failures; verify experiment
health first.
1---2name: trustworthy-experiment-insights3description: Assess whether experiment results are credible enough to influence product decisions. Use when checking false positive or false negative risk, underpowered metrics, suspiciously large lifts, replication needs, meta-analysis, stratified sampling, covariate adjustment, or whether A/B test insights should be trusted.4license: MIT5compatibility: Codex, Claude Code, and other Agent Skills-compatible clients.6metadata:7 version: "0.1.0"8 displayName: Trustworthy Experiment Insights9 category: Product Management10 tags: practical-ab-testing,next-level-ab-testing,ab-testing,experimentation,analytics11---1213# Trustworthy Experiment Insights1415Use this skill to decide whether an experiment result is believable enough to16shape a product or engineering decision. It focuses on false positives, false17negatives, power, replication, meta-analysis, stratified sampling, covariate18adjustment, and suspicious result review.1920## Source Traceability2122Primary source: *Next-Level A/B Testing* by Leemay Nassery. Guidance is23transformed and paraphrased from Chapter 6 on false positives and negatives,24meta-analysis, metric sensitivity, stratified random sampling, covariate25adjustments, replication, longer runs, and statistical power.2627Related skills:2829- `ab-test-results-readout` for standard experiment reporting.30- `experiment-sensitivity-optimization` for improving precision before or31 during experiment design.32- `experiment-verification-monitoring` for operational validity checks.3334## Reference Routing3536| Need | Read |37|------|------|38| Insight-quality concepts | `references/core/knowledge.md` |39| Credibility and follow-up rules | `references/core/rules.md` |40| Result-review scenarios | `references/core/examples.md` |41| Step-by-step credibility review | `workflows/review-experiment-credibility.md` |4243## Workflow44451. Confirm the experiment was operationally valid enough to interpret.462. Check power, practical significance, and whether metrics were underpowered.473. Look for false positive risk: suspicious lift, many comparisons, early stop,48 weak prior, or contradiction with prior experiments.494. Look for false negative risk: noisy metrics, small sample, low sensitivity,50 or over-broad metric choice.515. Compare with similar experiments or run meta-analysis when available.526. Recommend launch, replicate, extend, investigate, or reject the result.5354## Output Format5556```markdown57# Experiment Insight Credibility Review5859## Result Under Review60[Experiment, metric, observed result, and proposed decision.]6162## Credibility Assessment63[Trust | Trust with caveats | Replicate | Extend | Investigate | Do not trust]6465## Evidence66| Check | Finding | Risk |67|-------|---------|------|6869## Follow-Up70- Replication needed:71- Longer run needed:72- Meta-analysis/comparison:73- Variance reduction opportunity:7475## Decision Guidance76[What decision can be made now, and what should wait.]77```7879## Quality Bar8081- Do not celebrate a result before checking whether it could be a false positive.82- Do not dismiss a flat result before checking power and sensitivity.83- Do not compare against prior experiments without noting differences in84 population, metric, design, and timing.85- Do not use statistical checks to hide operational failures; verify experiment86 health first.