arkaos 4.26.0 → 4.28.0

package/departments/marketing/skills/ab-test/SKILL.md

@@ -2,13 +2,17 @@
 name: mkt/ab-test
 description: >
   A/B test plan: hypothesis, variants, sample size, duration, and success
-  criteria, prioritised with ICE scoring and statistical significance.
+  criteria, prioritized with ICE scoring and statistical significance.
   TRIGGER: "A/B test", "teste A/B", "testa duas variantes", "split test",
   "qual variante ganha", "/mkt ab-test <element>". SKIP: testing
   landing-page copy or layout inside a funnel -> landing/ab-test (owns
   on-page conversion experiments); redesigning the page itself ->
   landing/optimize-page.
 allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, Agent, WebFetch, WebSearch]
+metadata:
+  origin: community
+  source: https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills
+  license: MIT
 ---
 
 <!-- arka:kb-first-prefix begin -->
@@ -22,9 +26,324 @@ allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, Agent, WebFetch, WebSearch]
 
 > **Agent:** Pedro (Paid Specialist) | **Framework:** ICE Scoring + Statistical Significance
 
-## What It Does
+**Context:** read the product marketing context first —
+`WizardingCode/Marketing/product-marketing.md` in Obsidian (KB-first),
+else the project-local `.agents/product-marketing.md`.
 
-A/B test plan: hypothesis, variants, sample size, duration, success criteria.
+You are an expert in experimentation and A/B testing. Your goal is to design
+tests that produce statistically valid, actionable results — and, over time,
+to build a continuous experimentation program that compounds into a growth
+engine rather than a series of one-off tests.
+
+## Initial Assessment
+
+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)
+
+## Growth Experimentation Program
+
+Individual tests are valuable. A continuous experimentation program is a compounding asset. This section covers how to run experiments as an ongoing growth engine, not just one-off tests.
+
+### The Experiment Loop
+
+```
+1. Generate hypotheses (from data, research, competitors, customer feedback)
+2. Prioritize with ICE scoring
+3. Design and run the test
+4. Analyze results with statistical rigor
+5. Promote winners to a playbook
+6. Generate new hypotheses from learnings
+→ Repeat
+```
+
+### Hypothesis Generation
+
+Feed your experiment backlog from multiple sources:
+
+| Source | What to Look For |
+|--------|-----------------|
+| Analytics | Drop-off points, low-converting pages, underperforming segments |
+| Customer research | Pain points, confusion, unmet expectations |
+| Competitor analysis | Features, messaging, or UX patterns they use that you don't |
+| Support tickets | Recurring questions or complaints about conversion flows |
+| Heatmaps/recordings | Where users hesitate, rage-click, or abandon |
+| Past experiments | "Significant loser" tests often reveal new angles to try |
+
+### ICE Prioritization
+
+Score each hypothesis 1-10 on three dimensions:
+
+| Dimension | Question |
+|-----------|----------|
+| **Impact** | If this works, how much will it move the primary metric? |
+| **Confidence** | How sure are we this will work? (Based on data, not gut.) |
+| **Ease** | How fast and cheap can we ship and measure this? |
+
+**ICE Score** = (Impact + Confidence + Ease) / 3
+
+Run highest-scoring experiments first. Re-score monthly as context changes.
+
+### Experiment Velocity
+
+Track your experimentation rate as a leading indicator of growth:
+
+| Metric | Target |
+|--------|--------|
+| Experiments launched per month | 4-8 for most teams |
+| Win rate | 20-30% is common for mature programs (sustained higher rates may indicate conservative hypotheses) |
+| Average test duration | 2-4 weeks |
+| Backlog depth | 20+ hypotheses queued |
+| Cumulative lift | Compound gains from all winners |
+
+### The Experiment Playbook
+
+When a test wins, don't just implement it — document the pattern:
+
+```
+## [Experiment Name]
+**Date**: [date]
+**Hypothesis**: [the hypothesis]
+**Sample size**: [n per variant]
+**Result**: [winner/loser/inconclusive] — [primary metric] changed by [X%] (95% CI: [range], p=[value])
+**Guardrails**: [any guardrail metrics and their outcomes]
+**Segment deltas**: [notable differences by device, segment, or cohort]
+**Why it worked/failed**: [analysis]
+**Pattern**: [the reusable insight — e.g., "social proof near pricing CTAs increases plan selection"]
+**Apply to**: [other pages/flows where this pattern might work]
+**Status**: [implemented / parked / needs follow-up test]
+```
+
+Over time, your playbook becomes a library of proven growth patterns specific to your product and audience.
+
+### Experiment Cadence
+
+**Weekly (30 min)**: Review running experiments for technical issues and guardrail metrics. Don't call winners early — but do stop tests where guardrails are significantly negative.
+
+**Bi-weekly**: Conclude completed experiments. Analyze results, update playbook, launch next experiment from backlog.
+
+**Monthly (1 hour)**: Review experiment velocity, win rate, cumulative lift. Replenish hypothesis backlog. Re-prioritize with ICE.
+
+**Quarterly**: Audit the playbook. Which patterns have been applied broadly? Which winning patterns haven't been scaled yet? What areas of the funnel are under-tested?
+
+## 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 ArkaOS skills
+
+- **`landing/optimize-page`** — generating test ideas from CRO principles
+- **`mkt/analytics-report`** — setting up test measurement and tracking
+- **`landing/copy-framework`** — creating variant copy for the test
 
 ## Output
 

package/departments/marketing/skills/ab-test/references/sample-size-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+# Sample Size Guide
+
+Reference for calculating sample sizes and test duration.
+
+## Contents
+- Sample Size Fundamentals (required inputs, what these mean)
+- Sample Size Quick Reference Tables
+- Duration Calculator (formula, examples, minimum duration rules, maximum duration guidelines)
+- Online Calculators
+- Adjusting for Multiple Variants
+- Common Sample Size Mistakes
+- When Sample Size Requirements Are Too High
+- Sequential Testing
+- Quick Decision Framework
+
+## Sample Size Fundamentals
+
+### Required Inputs
+
+1. **Baseline conversion rate**: Your current rate
+2. **Minimum detectable effect (MDE)**: Smallest change worth detecting
+3. **Statistical significance level**: Usually 95% (α = 0.05)
+4. **Statistical power**: Usually 80% (β = 0.20)
+
+### What These Mean
+
+**Baseline conversion rate**: If your page converts at 5%, that's your baseline.
+
+**MDE (Minimum Detectable Effect)**: The smallest improvement you care about detecting. Set this based on:
+- Business impact (is a 5% lift meaningful?)
+- Implementation cost (worth the effort?)
+- Realistic expectations (what have past tests shown?)
+
+**Statistical significance (95%)**: Means there's less than 5% chance the observed difference is due to random chance.
+
+**Statistical power (80%)**: Means if there's a real effect of size MDE, you have 80% chance of detecting it.
+
+---
+
+## Sample Size Quick Reference Tables
+
+### Conversion Rate: 1%
+
+| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
+|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
+| 5% (1% → 1.05%) | 1,500,000 | 3,000,000 |
+| 10% (1% → 1.1%) | 380,000 | 760,000 |
+| 20% (1% → 1.2%) | 97,000 | 194,000 |
+| 50% (1% → 1.5%) | 16,000 | 32,000 |
+| 100% (1% → 2%) | 4,200 | 8,400 |
+
+### Conversion Rate: 3%
+
+| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
+|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
+| 5% (3% → 3.15%) | 480,000 | 960,000 |
+| 10% (3% → 3.3%) | 120,000 | 240,000 |
+| 20% (3% → 3.6%) | 31,000 | 62,000 |
+| 50% (3% → 4.5%) | 5,200 | 10,400 |
+| 100% (3% → 6%) | 1,400 | 2,800 |
+
+### Conversion Rate: 5%
+
+| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
+|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
+| 5% (5% → 5.25%) | 280,000 | 560,000 |
+| 10% (5% → 5.5%) | 72,000 | 144,000 |
+| 20% (5% → 6%) | 18,000 | 36,000 |
+| 50% (5% → 7.5%) | 3,100 | 6,200 |
+| 100% (5% → 10%) | 810 | 1,620 |
+
+### Conversion Rate: 10%
+
+| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
+|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
+| 5% (10% → 10.5%) | 130,000 | 260,000 |
+| 10% (10% → 11%) | 34,000 | 68,000 |
+| 20% (10% → 12%) | 8,700 | 17,400 |
+| 50% (10% → 15%) | 1,500 | 3,000 |
+| 100% (10% → 20%) | 400 | 800 |
+
+### Conversion Rate: 20%
+
+| Lift to Detect | Sample per Variant | Total Sample |
+|----------------|-------------------|--------------|
+| 5% (20% → 21%) | 60,000 | 120,000 |
+| 10% (20% → 22%) | 16,000 | 32,000 |
+| 20% (20% → 24%) | 4,000 | 8,000 |
+| 50% (20% → 30%) | 700 | 1,400 |
+| 100% (20% → 40%) | 200 | 400 |
+
+---
+
+## Duration Calculator
+
+### Formula
+
+```
+Duration (days) = (Sample per variant × Number of variants) / (Daily traffic × % exposed)
+```
+
+### Examples
+
+**Scenario 1: High-traffic page**
+- Need: 10,000 per variant (2 variants = 20,000 total)
+- Daily traffic: 5,000 visitors
+- 100% exposed to test
+- Duration: 20,000 / 5,000 = **4 days**
+
+**Scenario 2: Medium-traffic page**
+- Need: 30,000 per variant (60,000 total)
+- Daily traffic: 2,000 visitors
+- 100% exposed
+- Duration: 60,000 / 2,000 = **30 days**
+
+**Scenario 3: Low-traffic with partial exposure**
+- Need: 15,000 per variant (30,000 total)
+- Daily traffic: 500 visitors
+- 50% exposed to test
+- Effective daily: 250
+- Duration: 30,000 / 250 = **120 days** (too long!)
+
+### Minimum Duration Rules
+
+Even with sufficient sample size, run tests for at least:
+- **1 full week**: To capture day-of-week variation
+- **2 business cycles**: If B2B (weekday vs. weekend patterns)
+- **Through paydays**: If e-commerce (beginning/end of month)
+
+### Maximum Duration Guidelines
+
+Avoid running tests longer than 4-8 weeks:
+- Novelty effects wear off
+- External factors intervene
+- Opportunity cost of other tests
+
+---
+
+## Online Calculators
+
+### Recommended Tools
+
+**Evan Miller's Calculator**
+https://www.evanmiller.org/ab-testing/sample-size.html
+- Simple interface
+- Bookmark-worthy
+
+**Optimizely's Calculator**
+https://www.optimizely.com/sample-size-calculator/
+- Business-friendly language
+- Duration estimates
+
+**AB Test Guide Calculator**
+https://www.abtestguide.com/calc/
+- Includes Bayesian option
+- Multiple test types
+
+**VWO Duration Calculator**
+https://vwo.com/tools/ab-test-duration-calculator/
+- Duration-focused
+- Good for planning
+
+---
+
+## Adjusting for Multiple Variants
+
+With more than 2 variants (A/B/n tests), you need more sample:
+
+| Variants | Multiplier |
+|----------|------------|
+| 2 (A/B) | 1x |
+| 3 (A/B/C) | ~1.5x |
+| 4 (A/B/C/D) | ~2x |
+| 5+ | Consider reducing variants |
+
+**Why?** More comparisons increase chance of false positives. You're comparing:
+- A vs B
+- A vs C
+- B vs C (sometimes)
+
+Apply Bonferroni correction or use tools that handle this automatically.
+
+---
+
+## Common Sample Size Mistakes
+
+### 1. Underpowered tests
+**Problem**: Not enough sample to detect realistic effects
+**Fix**: Be realistic about MDE, get more traffic, or don't test
+
+### 2. Overpowered tests
+**Problem**: Waiting for sample size when you already have significance
+**Fix**: This is actually fine—you committed to sample size, honor it
+
+### 3. Wrong baseline rate
+**Problem**: Using wrong conversion rate for calculation
+**Fix**: Use the specific metric and page, not site-wide averages
+
+### 4. Ignoring segments
+**Problem**: Calculating for full traffic, then analyzing segments
+**Fix**: If you plan segment analysis, calculate sample for smallest segment
+
+### 5. Testing too many things
+**Problem**: Dividing traffic too many ways
+**Fix**: Prioritize ruthlessly, run fewer concurrent tests
+
+---
+
+## When Sample Size Requirements Are Too High
+
+Options when you can't get enough traffic:
+
+1. **Increase MDE**: Accept only detecting larger effects (20%+ lift)
+2. **Lower confidence**: Use 90% instead of 95% (risky, document it)
+3. **Reduce variants**: Test only the most promising variant
+4. **Combine traffic**: Test across multiple similar pages
+5. **Test upstream**: Test earlier in funnel where traffic is higher
+6. **Don't test**: Make decision based on qualitative data instead
+7. **Longer test**: Accept longer duration (weeks/months)
+
+---
+
+## Sequential Testing
+
+If you must check results before reaching sample size:
+
+### What is it?
+Statistical method that adjusts for multiple looks at data.
+
+### When to use
+- High-risk changes
+- Need to stop bad variants early
+- Time-sensitive decisions
+
+### Tools that support it
+- Optimizely (Stats Accelerator)
+- VWO (SmartStats)
+- PostHog (Bayesian approach)
+
+### Tradeoff
+- More flexibility to stop early
+- Slightly larger sample size requirement
+- More complex analysis
+
+---
+
+## Quick Decision Framework
+
+### Can I run this test?
+
+```
+Daily traffic to page: _____
+Baseline conversion rate: _____
+MDE I care about: _____
+
+Sample needed per variant: _____ (from tables above)
+Days to run: Sample / Daily traffic = _____
+
+If days > 60: Consider alternatives
+If days > 30: Acceptable for high-impact tests
+If days < 14: Likely feasible
+If days < 7: Easy to run, consider running longer anyway
+```