luckiest-co 1.0.1 → 1.0.3

package/skills/luckiest-ab-testing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,379 @@
+---
+name: luckiest-ab-testing
+description: Plan, design, analyze, and scale A/B tests and growth experiments for marketers — builds valid hypotheses, sizes samples, picks primary/secondary/guardrail metrics, guards against peeking and Sample Ratio Mismatch, and runs an ongoing experimentation program. Use when the user mentions "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," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program," "experiment playbook," "sample ratio mismatch," "SRM," "my test results look weird," "why is my split uneven," or "Bayesian A/B test." Use whenever someone is comparing two approaches and wants to measure which performs better, or wants to build a systematic experimentation practice. For tracking implementation, see luckiest-analytics. For page-level conversion optimization, see luckiest-cro.
+license: See ATTRIBUTION.md
+metadata:
+  version: "1.1.0"
+  listing_id: luckiest-ab-testing
+  author: luckiest
+---
+
+# Luckiest 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.
+
+## Staying current
+
+On activation, call the Luckiest MCP check_updates tool with { listingId: "luckiest-ab-testing", installedSemver: "1.1.0" }. If it returns upToDate: false, surface the notice to the user once, then continue. Do nothing further if upToDate: true. Never block on this check — if the tool is unavailable, proceed.
+
+When the skill's work is done, call the Luckiest MCP report_usage tool once with { listing_id: "luckiest-ab-testing", skill_version: "1.1.0", matched: true, success: <true if the skill completed, false otherwise> }. Metadata only, never prompt text. Never block on it — if the tool is unavailable, skip silently.
+
+## Initial Assessment
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+If `.agents/product-marketing.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing.md`, or the legacy `product-marketing-context.md` filename, 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)
+
+### Low-Traffic Default
+
+If the sample-size math puts any realistic MDE at 60+ days, do not default to a classic fixed-horizon frequentist test. Steer toward a Bayesian or sequential approach, variance reduction (CUPED, if the tool supports it), testing further upstream where traffic is higher, or an honest qualitative decision. Grinding a fixed-horizon test for months on thin traffic is the most common way low-traffic teams waste a quarter. See the sample-size guide for details.
+
+---
+
+## 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
+
+### Step 0: Check Data Quality Before Metrics (SRM)
+
+Before reading any metric, verify the test wasn't corrupted. **Sample Ratio Mismatch (SRM)** is when the observed traffic split deviates from the intended split (e.g. you set 50/50 but see 48/52). It signals a broken randomization, redirect, bot-filtering, or instrumentation bug — and when present it invalidates the result no matter how significant the numbers look. It occurs in roughly 6-10% of tests.
+
+- Run a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test on observed vs. expected counts per variant. A p-value below ~0.01 means SRM is present.
+- If SRM fails: STOP. Do not interpret metrics. Find the cause, fix it, rerun. No exceptions.
+- Common causes: redirect-based split URL drops, bot traffic hitting one variant, variant load failures, delayed instrumentation, unequal caching.
+- Many platforms (VWO SmartStats, AB Tasty, Kameleoon) monitor SRM automatically.
+
+### Statistical Significance
+- 95% confidence = p-value < 0.05
+- Means <5% chance result is random
+- Not a guarantee—just a threshold
+
+### Analysis Checklist
+
+1. **SRM passed?** If not, results are invalid—stop and fix
+2. **Reach sample size?** If not, result is preliminary
+3. **Statistically significant?** Check confidence intervals
+4. **Effect size meaningful?** Compare to MDE, project impact
+5. **Secondary metrics consistent?** Support the primary?
+6. **Guardrail concerns?** Anything get worse?
+7. **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.
+
+**Share with your tribe (offer, never automatic):** When a test wins and you've written its playbook entry, you may offer: "Want me to surface this winning pattern to your Luckiest tribe? Others running experiments on similar pages would see what actually moved the metric." Only surface the sanitized pattern (hypothesis, change, lift, where it applies) — never raw traffic data, customer records, credentials, or tokens. If the user declines, stop and do not post.
+
+### 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
+- Skipping the SRM check and trusting a corrupted test
+- 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
+
+- **luckiest-cro**: For generating test ideas based on CRO principles
+- **luckiest-analytics**: For setting up test measurement
+- **luckiest-copywriting**: For creating variant copy

package/skills/luckiest-ab-testing/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "luckiest-ab-testing",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "I want to A/B test our homepage headline. We currently say 'The All-in-One Project Management Tool' and want to test something benefit-focused. We get about 15,000 visitors/month and our current signup rate is 3.2%.",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should build a proper hypothesis using the framework: 'Because [observation], we believe [change] will cause [outcome], which we'll measure by [metric].' Should identify this as an A/B test (two variants). Should calculate or reference sample size needs based on 15,000 monthly visitors and 3.2% baseline. Should define primary metric (signup rate), secondary metrics, and guardrail metrics. Should warn about the peeking problem and recommend a fixed test duration. Should provide the test plan in the structured output format.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
+        "Uses the hypothesis framework with observation, belief, outcome, and metric",
+        "Identifies as A/B test type",
+        "Addresses sample size calculation based on traffic and baseline rate",
+        "Defines primary metric (signup rate)",
+        "Defines secondary and guardrail metrics",
+        "Warns about the peeking problem",
+        "Provides structured test plan output"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "we want to test like 4 different CTA button colors on our pricing page. is that a good idea?",
+      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should identify this as an A/B/n test (multiple variants). Should caution that testing 4 variants requires significantly more traffic than a simple A/B test. Should reference the sample size quick reference showing traffic multipliers for multiple variants. Should question whether button color alone is likely to produce meaningful lift vs testing CTA copy, placement, or surrounding context. Should recommend either reducing to 2 variants or ensuring sufficient traffic. Should still provide hypothesis framework and test setup if proceeding.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
+        "Identifies as A/B/n test (multiple variants)",
+        "Cautions about increased traffic needs for 4 variants",
+        "References sample size requirements",
+        "Questions whether button color alone is high-impact",
+        "Suggests alternative higher-impact elements to test",
+        "Provides hypothesis framework"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "Our test has been running for 3 days and Variant B is winning with 95% confidence. Should we call it?",
+      "expected_output": "Should immediately address the peeking problem. Should explain that checking results early inflates false positive rates. Should recommend running for the full pre-calculated duration regardless of early results. Should explain why early significance can be misleading (regression to the mean, day-of-week effects, audience mix shifts). Should provide guidance on when it IS appropriate to stop early (sequential testing methods). Should recommend the pre-test commitment to duration.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Addresses the peeking problem directly",
+        "Explains why early significance is misleading",
+        "Recommends running for full pre-calculated duration",
+        "Mentions day-of-week effects or audience mix shifts",
+        "Explains false positive rate inflation from peeking",
+        "Mentions sequential testing as alternative approach"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "Help me set up a multivariate test on our landing page. I want to test the headline, hero image, and CTA button simultaneously.",
+      "expected_output": "Should identify this as a Multivariate Test (MVT). Should explain that MVT tests combinations of elements and requires much more traffic than A/B tests. Should calculate or reference traffic needs (combinations multiply: e.g., 2 headlines × 2 images × 2 CTAs = 8 combinations). Should recommend MVT only if traffic supports it, otherwise suggest sequential A/B tests. Should build hypotheses for each element being tested. Should define interaction effects to watch for. Should provide structured test plan.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Identifies as multivariate test (MVT)",
+        "Explains MVT tests combinations of elements",
+        "Addresses dramatically higher traffic requirements",
+        "Calculates number of combinations",
+        "Suggests sequential A/B tests as alternative if traffic insufficient",
+        "Builds hypotheses for each element",
+        "Provides structured test plan"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "What metrics should I track for an A/B test on our trial signup page? We're testing a longer form (adds company size and role fields) against the current short form.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the metrics selection framework with three tiers: primary, secondary, and guardrail metrics. Primary: form completion rate (the direct conversion metric). Secondary: lead quality metrics (SQL conversion rate, activation rate post-signup). Guardrail: overall signup volume (ensure longer form doesn't tank total signups below acceptable threshold). Should explain the tradeoff between conversion quantity and lead quality. Should note that this test needs longer observation window to measure downstream metrics.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies three-tier metric framework (primary, secondary, guardrail)",
+        "Identifies form completion rate as primary metric",
+        "Identifies lead quality as secondary metric",
+        "Defines guardrail metrics to protect against negative outcomes",
+        "Explains quantity vs quality tradeoff",
+        "Notes need for longer observation window for downstream metrics"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "Can you help me write copy for our new landing page? We want to test it against the current version.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is primarily a copywriting task, not a test setup task. Should defer to or cross-reference the luckiest-copywriting skill for writing the actual copy. May help frame the test hypothesis and setup, but should make clear that copywriting is the right skill for creating the page copy itself.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recognizes this as primarily a copywriting task",
+        "References or defers to luckiest-copywriting skill",
+        "Does not attempt to write full page copy using test setup patterns",
+        "May offer to help with test hypothesis and setup"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "prompt": "We ran an A/B test on our pricing page for 4 weeks. Control: 2.1% conversion. Variant: 2.4% conversion. 12,000 visitors per variant. Is this statistically significant? Should we ship it?",
+      "expected_output": "Should evaluate the results against statistical significance criteria. Should calculate or estimate whether the sample size is sufficient to detect a 0.3 percentage point lift from a 2.1% baseline (this is a ~14% relative lift). Should reference the 95% confidence threshold. Should discuss practical significance vs statistical significance. Should recommend whether to ship, continue testing, or iterate. Should consider segment analysis if results are borderline.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Evaluates against statistical significance criteria",
+        "Addresses whether sample size is sufficient for this effect size",
+        "References 95% confidence threshold",
+        "Distinguishes statistical significance from practical significance",
+        "Provides clear recommendation on shipping",
+        "Suggests segment analysis or follow-up if borderline"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "prompt": "My A/B test results look weird — the tool says control got 10,400 users and variant got 9,600 but I set it to 50/50. Can I still trust the winner?",
+      "expected_output": "Should identify this as a Sample Ratio Mismatch (SRM). Should explain that an uneven split when 50/50 was intended signals a broken randomization or instrumentation bug that invalidates the results. Should recommend running a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test to confirm SRM. Should instruct the user NOT to trust or interpret the metrics until the cause is found and fixed, then rerun. Should list common causes (redirect drops, bot traffic, variant load failures, delayed instrumentation).",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Identifies the issue as Sample Ratio Mismatch (SRM)",
+        "Explains SRM invalidates results regardless of significance",
+        "Recommends a chi-squared check to confirm",
+        "Tells the user not to interpret metrics until fixed and rerun",
+        "Lists plausible root causes"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    }
+  ]
+}