Agent skill
gtmos-analytics-experiments
Design A/B tests and growth experiments that hold up: hypothesis, primary metric, sample size and duration, guardrails, and how to read the result.
Filed under Analytics and reporting.
From ay-automate/gtmos-skills · 107 skill entries · 0 · pushed 2026-11-02
What it does when it runs
Design A/B tests and growth experiments that hold up: hypothesis, primary metric, sample size and duration, guardrails, and how to read the result. With GTM OS connected it sizes tests from real baselines (metric.evaluate, the engine KPIs), simulates play-based tests with play.simulate before anything runs, and reports results with their sample sizes. GTM OS has no experiment engine yet, so the skill says so. Use for \"A/B test\", \"split test\", \"experiment\", \"test this headline\", \"sample size\", \"statistical significance\", \"growth experiments\", \"holdout\".
Automated analysis of the skill and the 2 files bundled beside it. A skill’s own description is written to be selected by an agent, so it describes the job and not the dependencies.
- Keys and connectors you must supply
- None found.
- Hosts it reaches
- vwo.com
- www.abtestguide.com
- www.amstat.org
- www.evanmiller.org
- www.optimizely.com
- Tool permissions it declares
- No
allowed-toolsin the frontmatter. It only issues instructions, so there is nothing to bound. - Actions present in the files
- None. Instructions only.
Ask about gtmos-analytics-experiments
Opens your assistant with this page's recorded context. Check the linked sources before relying on it.
Install it
View source on GitHub ↗git clone --depth 1 --filter=blob:none --sparse https://github.com/ay-automate/gtmos-skills.git /tmp/gtmos-skills git -C /tmp/gtmos-skills sparse-checkout set "skills/gtmos-analytics-experiments" mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills/gtmos-analytics-experiments cp -R "/tmp/gtmos-skills/skills/gtmos-analytics-experiments/." ~/.claude/skills/gtmos-analytics-experiments/
Picked up without a restart. A project skill of the same name is shadowed by your personal one. For one repository only, swap ~/.claude/skills for .claude/skills. Claude Code docs ↗
Or take the whole library
This repo ships a .claude-plugin manifest, so Claude Code can install all 107 skills at once. Plugin skills are invoked as /<plugin>:<skill>, so they never collide with your own.
/plugin marketplace add ay-automate/gtmos-skills /plugin
The folder is the same in every client that implements the format — 46 of them — so if yours is not above, only the destination changes.
The skill
Source on GitHub ↗Reproduced in full from ay-automate/gtmos-skills/blob/86780d2f545cdc0a1de971917aa04b41bb0b3ccd/skills/gtmos-analytics-experiments/SKILL.md, which is licensed MIT (skill frontmatter). 1,999 words, 50 headings.
Experiments and A/B tests
Part of GTM OS Skills. Adapted from
ab-testingin coreyhaines31/marketingskills (MIT, Copyright (c) 2025 Corey Haines). Changed for GTM OS: the operating section below, rewritten cross-references and tool pointers. Notices: THIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md (installed beside the skills asTHIRD-PARTY-NOTICES.md).
With GTM OS connected
Rules (GTMOS-RULES.md). Read
policy.get_dry_modefirst; in dry mode every effect stops at a draft. E-class operations are proposed and a different person approves them; never approve your own proposal. Numbers come only from operation results, named with the operation. Claims about results, customers or metrics must be backed by active proof fromproof.list.
GTM OS has no experiment or holdout operation yet; plan and measure with what exists and say so.
1. Baseline. metric.evaluate Q on a definition.metric, or the engine KPIs (outreach.kpis, perf_ads.kpis, seo_geo.kpis, score.kpis). Use the baseline to compute sample size with the method below; if the baseline is too small, say the test cannot reach significance in a reasonable time.
2. Outbound and play tests. A message test is two drafts on the Outreach engine, sent only after approval. A play-based test (for example, a new trigger) is simulated with play.simulate Q (zero writes) before a person enables it.
3. Read the result. Report both arms with counts, the metric, the interval, and the operation each number came from. No winner is declared below the planned sample.
Without GTM OS
Follow the method below with the user's analytics or testing tool. Write the hypothesis and stopping rule down before the test starts.
You are an expert in experimentation and A/B testing. Your goal is to help design tests that produce statistically valid, actionable results.
Initial Assessment
Check for context first:
With GTM OS connected, read the org definitions named in With GTM OS connected above before asking anything. Without it, read .agents/product-marketing.md (or .claude/product-marketing.md) if it exists; gtmos-marketing-positioning writes that file. Ask only for what neither covers.
Before designing a test, understand:
- Test Context - What are you trying to improve? What change are you considering?
- Current State - Baseline conversion rate? Current traffic volume?
- 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:
For detailed sample size tables and duration calculations: See 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
- For a pre-specified fixed-horizon test, compare its p-value with the chosen significance level (commonly α = 0.05).
- A p-value describes how incompatible the data are with the null model: the probability, assuming that model and its assumptions, of a result at least as extreme as the observed one. It is not the probability that the result is random, that the null is true, or that a variant will win again.
- A 95% confidence interval comes from a procedure with 95% coverage over repeated samples under its assumptions. It is not a 95% posterior probability that this particular interval contains the true effect. Report the interval and effect size alongside the p-value.
- Use the planned analysis and stopping rule. Sequential tests and Bayesian analyses have their own interpretation; do not translate every platform's “confidence” score into a fixed-horizon p-value.
These distinctions follow the American Statistical Association's p-value statement. Statistical significance alone does not establish business value or justify shipping a variant.
Analysis Checklist
- Reach sample size? If not, result is preliminary
- Statistically significant? Check confidence intervals
- Effect size meaningful? Compare to MDE, project impact
- Secondary metrics consistent? Support the primary?
- Guardrail concerns? Anything get worse?
- Segment differences? Mobile vs. desktop? New vs. returning?
Interpreting Results
| Result | Conclusion |
|---|---|
| Significant winner | Check effect size, uncertainty and guardrails before implementing |
| Significant loser | Keep control, learn why |
| No significant difference | Report the effect interval: it may still allow meaningful benefit and harm, or may exclude effects worth pursuing. Follow the planned stopping rule; do not extend a finished fixed-horizon test until it becomes significant. Plan a new test if needed. |
| Mixed signals | Check data quality and planned metrics; label unplanned segment findings exploratory and confirm them in a new test |
Documentation
Document every test with:
- Hypothesis
- Variants (with screenshots)
- Results (sample, metrics, significance)
- Decision and learnings
For templates: See 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
- What's your current conversion rate?
- How much traffic does this page get?
- What change are you considering and why?
- What's the smallest improvement worth detecting?
- What tools do you have for testing?
- Have you tested this area before?
Related Skills
- gtmos-marketing-cro: For generating test ideas based on CRO principles
- gtmos-analytics-tracking: For setting up test measurement
- gtmos-content-copywriting: For creating variant copy
Files bundled with it
These load only when the skill asks for them, so they cost nothing until it runs.
Other skills for the same job
Different authors, same problem. Matched on the words in the skill name, across every library in the catalogue except this one.
- analytics by coreyhaines31 · 57,918
- linkedin-engager-analytics by sergebulaev · 5,486
- closed-loop-analytics-upgrade by ericosiu · 3,766
- google-analytics by OpenClaudia · 724
- youtube-analytics by OpenClaudia · 724
- analytics-tracking by louisblythe · 195
- performance-analytics by louisblythe · 195
- google-analytics by thatrebeccarae · 189
Need help setting it up?
This page tells you what gtmos-analytics-experiments does and what it needs. Cheetah builds the agent setup it runs inside: data, CRM, sequencing and the guardrails.
Book a call →The directory stays free. There is nothing gated behind this.