Ab test setup skill
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment.
by davila7·MIT license·★ 32,299 Stars on the repo·GitHub ↗
npx degit davila7/claude-code-templates/cli-tool/components/skills/business-marketing/ab-test-setup#main ~/.claude/skills/ab-test-setup-davila7Checked ·commit main
Files of Ab test setup
Show the full text509 lines
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.
Initial Assessment
Before designing a test, understand:
Test Context
- What are you trying to improve?
- What change are you considering?
- What made you want to test this?
Current State
- Baseline conversion rate?
- Current traffic volume?
- Any historical test data?
Constraints
- Technical implementation complexity?
- Timeline requirements?
- 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
- Save MVT for later
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].
Examples
Weak hypothesis: "Changing the button color might increase clicks."
Strong hypothesis: "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."
Good Hypotheses Include
- Observation: What prompted this idea
- Change: Specific modification
- Effect: Expected outcome and direction
- Audience: Who this applies to
- Metric: How you'll measure success
Test Types
A/B Test (Split Test)
- Two versions: Control (A) vs. Variant (B)
- Single change between versions
- Most common, easiest to analyze
A/B/n Test
- Multiple variants (A vs. B vs. C...)
- Requires more traffic
- Good for testing several options
Multivariate Test (MVT)
- Multiple changes in combinations
- Tests interactions between changes
- Requires significantly more traffic
- Complex analysis
Split URL Test
- Different URLs for variants
- Good for major page changes
- Easier implementation sometimes
Sample Size Calculation
Inputs Needed
- Baseline conversion rate: Your current rate
- Minimum detectable effect (MDE): Smallest change worth detecting
- Statistical significance level: Usually 95%
- Statistical power: Usually 80%
Quick Reference
| Baseline Rate | 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 |
Formula Resources
- Evan Miller's calculator: https://www.evanmiller.org/ab-testing/sample-size.html
- Optimizely's calculator: https://www.optimizely.com/sample-size-calculator/
Test Duration
Duration = Sample size needed per variant × Number of variants
───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Daily traffic to test page × Conversion rate
Minimum: 1-2 business cycles (usually 1-2 weeks) Maximum: Avoid running too long (novelty effects, external factors)
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
- Help understand user behavior
Guardrail Metrics
- Things that shouldn't get worse
- Revenue, retention, satisfaction
- Stop test if significantly negative
Metric Examples by Test Type
Homepage CTA test:
- Primary: CTA click-through rate
- Secondary: Time to click, scroll depth
- Guardrail: Bounce rate, downstream conversion
Pricing page test:
- Primary: Plan selection rate
- Secondary: Time on page, plan distribution
- Guardrail: Support tickets, refund rate
Signup flow test:
- Primary: Signup completion rate
- Secondary: Field-level completion, time to complete
- Guardrail: User activation rate (post-signup quality)
Designing Variants
Control (A)
- Current experience, unchanged
- Don't modify during test
Variant (B+)
Best practices:
- Single, meaningful change
- Bold enough to make a difference
- True to the hypothesis
What to vary:
Headlines/Copy:
- Message angle
- Value proposition
- Specificity level
- Tone/voice
Visual Design:
- Layout structure
- Color and contrast
- Image selection
- Visual hierarchy
CTA:
- Button copy
- Size/prominence
- Placement
- Number of CTAs
Content:
- Information included
- Order of information
- Amount of content
- Social proof type
Documenting Variants
Control (A):
- Screenshot
- Description of current state
Variant (B):
- Screenshot or mockup
- Specific changes made
- Hypothesis for why this will win
Traffic Allocation
Standard Split
- 50/50 for A/B test
- Equal split for multiple variants
Conservative Rollout
- 90/10 or 80/20 initially
- Limits risk of bad variant
- Longer to reach significance
Ramping
- Start small, increase over time
- Good for technical risk mitigation
- Most tools support this
Considerations
- Consistency: Users see same variant on return
- Segment sizes: Ensure segments are large enough
- Time of day/week: Balanced exposure
Implementation Approaches
Client-Side Testing
Tools: PostHog, Optimizely, VWO, custom
How it works:
- JavaScript modifies page after load
- Quick to implement
- Can cause flicker
Best for:
- Marketing pages
- Copy/visual changes
- Quick iteration
Server-Side Testing
Tools: PostHog, LaunchDarkly, Split, custom
How it works:
- Variant determined before page renders
- No flicker
- Requires development work
Best for:
- Product features
- Complex changes
- Performance-sensitive pages
Feature Flags
- Binary on/off (not true A/B)
- Good for rollouts
- Can convert to A/B with percentage split
Running the Test
Pre-Launch Checklist
- Hypothesis documented
- Primary metric defined
- Sample size calculated
- Test duration estimated
- Variants implemented correctly
- Tracking verified
- QA completed on all variants
- Stakeholders informed
During the Test
DO:
- Monitor for technical issues
- Check segment quality
- Document any external factors
DON'T:
- Peek at results and stop early
- Make changes to variants
- Add traffic from new sources
- End early because you "know" the answer
Peeking Problem
Looking at results before reaching sample size and stopping when you see significance leads to:
- False positives
- Inflated effect sizes
- Wrong decisions
Solutions:
- Pre-commit to sample size and stick to it
- Use sequential testing if you must peek
- 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
Practical Significance
Statistical ≠ Practical
- Is the effect size meaningful for business?
- Is it worth the implementation cost?
- Is it sustainable over time?
What to Look At
Did you reach sample size?
- If not, result is preliminary
Is it statistically significant?
- Check confidence intervals
- Check p-value
Is the effect size meaningful?
- Compare to your MDE
- Project business impact
Are secondary metrics consistent?
- Do they support the primary?
- Any unexpected effects?
Any guardrail concerns?
- Did anything get worse?
- Long-term risks?
Segment differences?
- Mobile vs. desktop?
- New vs. returning?
- Traffic source?
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 |
Documenting and Learning
Test Documentation
Test Name: [Name]
Test ID: [ID in testing tool]
Dates: [Start] - [End]
Owner: [Name]
Hypothesis:
[Full hypothesis statement]
Variants:
- Control: [Description + screenshot]
- Variant: [Description + screenshot]
Results:
- Sample size: [achieved vs. target]
- Primary metric: [control] vs. [variant] ([% change], [confidence])
- Secondary metrics: [summary]
- Segment insights: [notable differences]
Decision: [Winner/Loser/Inconclusive]
Action: [What we're doing]
Learnings:
[What we learned, what to test next]
Building a Learning Repository
- Central location for all tests
- Searchable by page, element, outcome
- Prevents re-running failed tests
- Builds institutional knowledge
Output Format
Test Plan Document
# A/B Test: [Name]
## Hypothesis
[Full hypothesis using framework]
## Test Design
- Type: A/B / A/B/n / MVT
- Duration: X weeks
- Sample size: X per variant
- Traffic allocation: 50/50
## Variants
[Control and variant descriptions with visuals]
## Metrics
- Primary: [metric and definition]
- Secondary: [list]
- Guardrails: [list]
## Implementation
- Method: Client-side / Server-side
- Tool: [Tool name]
- Dev requirements: [If any]
## Analysis Plan
- Success criteria: [What constitutes a win]
- Segment analysis: [Planned segments]
Results Summary
When test is complete
Recommendations
Next steps based on results
Common Mistakes
Test Design
- Testing too small a change (undetectable)
- Testing too many things (can't isolate)
- No clear hypothesis
- Wrong audience
Execution
- Stopping early
- Changing things mid-test
- Not checking implementation
- Uneven traffic allocation
Analysis
- Ignoring confidence intervals
- Cherry-picking segments
- Over-interpreting inconclusive results
- Not considering practical significance
Questions to Ask
If you need more context:
- 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
- page-cro: For generating test ideas based on CRO principles
- analytics-tracking: For setting up test measurement
- copywriting: For creating variant copy
| 1 | |
| 2 | name ab-test-setup |
| 3 | description When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," or "hypothesis." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | |
| 6 | # A/B Test Setup |
| 7 | |
| 8 | You are an expert in experimentation and A/B testing. Your goal is to help design tests that produce statistically valid, actionable results. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | ## Initial Assessment |
| 11 | |
| 12 | Before designing a test, understand: |
| 13 | |
| 14 | **Test Context** |
| 15 | What are you trying to improve? |
| 16 | What change are you considering? |
| 17 | What made you want to test this? |
| 18 | |
| 19 | **Current State** |
| 20 | Baseline conversion rate? |
| 21 | Current traffic volume? |
| 22 | Any historical test data? |
| 23 | |
| 24 | **Constraints** |
| 25 | Technical implementation complexity? |
| 26 | Timeline requirements? |
| 27 | Tools available? |
| 28 | |
| 29 | |
| 30 | |
| 31 | ## Core Principles |
| 32 | |
| 33 | ### 1. Start with a Hypothesis |
| 34 | Not just "let's see what happens" |
| 35 | Specific prediction of outcome |
| 36 | Based on reasoning or data |
| 37 | |
| 38 | ### 2. Test One Thing |
| 39 | Single variable per test |
| 40 | Otherwise you don't know what worked |
| 41 | Save MVT for later |
| 42 | |
| 43 | ### 3. Statistical Rigor |
| 44 | Pre-determine sample size |
| 45 | Don't peek and stop early |
| 46 | Commit to the methodology |
| 47 | |
| 48 | ### 4. Measure What Matters |
| 49 | Primary metric tied to business value |
| 50 | Secondary metrics for context |
| 51 | Guardrail metrics to prevent harm |
| 52 | |
| 53 | |
| 54 | |
| 55 | ## Hypothesis Framework |
| 56 | |
| 57 | ### Structure |
| 58 | |
| 59 | |
| 60 | Because [observation/data], |
| 61 | we believe [change] |
| 62 | will cause [expected outcome] |
| 63 | for [audience]. |
| 64 | We'll know this is true when [metrics]. |
| 65 | |
| 66 | |
| 67 | ### Examples |
| 68 | |
| 69 | **Weak hypothesis:** |
| 70 | "Changing the button color might increase clicks." |
| 71 | |
| 72 | **Strong hypothesis:** |
| 73 | "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." |
| 74 | |
| 75 | ### Good Hypotheses Include |
| 76 | |
| 77 | **Observation**: What prompted this idea |
| 78 | **Change**: Specific modification |
| 79 | **Effect**: Expected outcome and direction |
| 80 | **Audience**: Who this applies to |
| 81 | **Metric**: How you'll measure success |
| 82 | |
| 83 | |
| 84 | |
| 85 | ## Test Types |
| 86 | |
| 87 | ### A/B Test (Split Test) |
| 88 | Two versions: Control (A) vs. Variant (B) |
| 89 | Single change between versions |
| 90 | Most common, easiest to analyze |
| 91 | |
| 92 | ### A/B/n Test |
| 93 | Multiple variants (A vs. B vs. C...) |
| 94 | Requires more traffic |
| 95 | Good for testing several options |
| 96 | |
| 97 | ### Multivariate Test (MVT) |
| 98 | Multiple changes in combinations |
| 99 | Tests interactions between changes |
| 100 | Requires significantly more traffic |
| 101 | Complex analysis |
| 102 | |
| 103 | ### Split URL Test |
| 104 | Different URLs for variants |
| 105 | Good for major page changes |
| 106 | Easier implementation sometimes |
| 107 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 110 | ## Sample Size Calculation |
| 111 | |
| 112 | ### Inputs Needed |
| 113 | |
| 114 | **Baseline conversion rate**: Your current rate |
| 115 | **Minimum detectable effect (MDE)**: Smallest change worth detecting |
| 116 | **Statistical significance level**: Usually 95% |
| 117 | **Statistical power**: Usually 80% |
| 118 | |
| 119 | ### Quick Reference |
| 120 | |
| 121 | | Baseline Rate | 10% Lift | 20% Lift | 50% Lift | |
| 122 | |---------------|----------|----------|----------| |
| 123 | | 1% | 150k/variant | 39k/variant | 6k/variant | |
| 124 | | 3% | 47k/variant | 12k/variant | 2k/variant | |
| 125 | | 5% | 27k/variant | 7k/variant | 1.2k/variant | |
| 126 | | 10% | 12k/variant | 3k/variant | 550/variant | |
| 127 | |
| 128 | ### Formula Resources |
| 129 | Evan Miller's calculator: https://www.evanmiller.org/ab-testing/sample-size.html |
| 130 | Optimizely's calculator: https://www.optimizely.com/sample-size-calculator/ |
| 131 | |
| 132 | ### Test Duration |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 135 | Duration = Sample size needed per variant × Number of variants |
| 136 | ─────────────────────────────────────────────────── |
| 137 | Daily traffic to test page × Conversion rate |
| 138 | |
| 139 | |
| 140 | Minimum: 1-2 business cycles (usually 1-2 weeks) |
| 141 | Maximum: Avoid running too long (novelty effects, external factors) |
| 142 | |
| 143 | |
| 144 | |
| 145 | ## Metrics Selection |
| 146 | |
| 147 | ### Primary Metric |
| 148 | Single metric that matters most |
| 149 | Directly tied to hypothesis |
| 150 | What you'll use to call the test |
| 151 | |
| 152 | ### Secondary Metrics |
| 153 | Support primary metric interpretation |
| 154 | Explain why/how the change worked |
| 155 | Help understand user behavior |
| 156 | |
| 157 | ### Guardrail Metrics |
| 158 | Things that shouldn't get worse |
| 159 | Revenue, retention, satisfaction |
| 160 | Stop test if significantly negative |
| 161 | |
| 162 | ### Metric Examples by Test Type |
| 163 | |
| 164 | **Homepage CTA test:** |
| 165 | Primary: CTA click-through rate |
| 166 | Secondary: Time to click, scroll depth |
| 167 | Guardrail: Bounce rate, downstream conversion |
| 168 | |
| 169 | **Pricing page test:** |
| 170 | Primary: Plan selection rate |
| 171 | Secondary: Time on page, plan distribution |
| 172 | Guardrail: Support tickets, refund rate |
| 173 | |
| 174 | **Signup flow test:** |
| 175 | Primary: Signup completion rate |
| 176 | Secondary: Field-level completion, time to complete |
| 177 | Guardrail: User activation rate (post-signup quality) |
| 178 | |
| 179 | |
| 180 | |
| 181 | ## Designing Variants |
| 182 | |
| 183 | ### Control (A) |
| 184 | Current experience, unchanged |
| 185 | Don't modify during test |
| 186 | |
| 187 | ### Variant (B+) |
| 188 | |
| 189 | **Best practices:** |
| 190 | Single, meaningful change |
| 191 | Bold enough to make a difference |
| 192 | True to the hypothesis |
| 193 | |
| 194 | **What to vary:** |
| 195 | |
| 196 | Headlines/Copy: |
| 197 | Message angle |
| 198 | Value proposition |
| 199 | Specificity level |
| 200 | Tone/voice |
| 201 | |
| 202 | Visual Design: |
| 203 | Layout structure |
| 204 | Color and contrast |
| 205 | Image selection |
| 206 | Visual hierarchy |
| 207 | |
| 208 | CTA: |
| 209 | Button copy |
| 210 | Size/prominence |
| 211 | Placement |
| 212 | Number of CTAs |
| 213 | |
| 214 | Content: |
| 215 | Information included |
| 216 | Order of information |
| 217 | Amount of content |
| 218 | Social proof type |
| 219 | |
| 220 | ### Documenting Variants |
| 221 | |
| 222 | |
| 223 | Control (A): |
| 224 | - Screenshot |
| 225 | - Description of current state |
| 226 | |
| 227 | Variant (B): |
| 228 | - Screenshot or mockup |
| 229 | - Specific changes made |
| 230 | - Hypothesis for why this will win |
| 231 | |
| 232 | |
| 233 | |
| 234 | |
| 235 | ## Traffic Allocation |
| 236 | |
| 237 | ### Standard Split |
| 238 | 50/50 for A/B test |
| 239 | Equal split for multiple variants |
| 240 | |
| 241 | ### Conservative Rollout |
| 242 | 90/10 or 80/20 initially |
| 243 | Limits risk of bad variant |
| 244 | Longer to reach significance |
| 245 | |
| 246 | ### Ramping |
| 247 | Start small, increase over time |
| 248 | Good for technical risk mitigation |
| 249 | Most tools support this |
| 250 | |
| 251 | ### Considerations |
| 252 | Consistency: Users see same variant on return |
| 253 | Segment sizes: Ensure segments are large enough |
| 254 | Time of day/week: Balanced exposure |
| 255 | |
| 256 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | ## Implementation Approaches |
| 259 | |
| 260 | ### Client-Side Testing |
| 261 | |
| 262 | **Tools**: PostHog, Optimizely, VWO, custom |
| 263 | |
| 264 | **How it works**: |
| 265 | JavaScript modifies page after load |
| 266 | Quick to implement |
| 267 | Can cause flicker |
| 268 | |
| 269 | **Best for**: |
| 270 | Marketing pages |
| 271 | Copy/visual changes |
| 272 | Quick iteration |
| 273 | |
| 274 | ### Server-Side Testing |
| 275 | |
| 276 | **Tools**: PostHog, LaunchDarkly, Split, custom |
| 277 | |
| 278 | **How it works**: |
| 279 | Variant determined before page renders |
| 280 | No flicker |
| 281 | Requires development work |
| 282 | |
| 283 | **Best for**: |
| 284 | Product features |
| 285 | Complex changes |
| 286 | Performance-sensitive pages |
| 287 | |
| 288 | ### Feature Flags |
| 289 | |
| 290 | Binary on/off (not true A/B) |
| 291 | Good for rollouts |
| 292 | Can convert to A/B with percentage split |
| 293 | |
| 294 | |
| 295 | |
| 296 | ## Running the Test |
| 297 | |
| 298 | ### Pre-Launch Checklist |
| 299 | |
| 300 | [ ] Hypothesis documented |
| 301 | [ ] Primary metric defined |
| 302 | [ ] Sample size calculated |
| 303 | [ ] Test duration estimated |
| 304 | [ ] Variants implemented correctly |
| 305 | [ ] Tracking verified |
| 306 | [ ] QA completed on all variants |
| 307 | [ ] Stakeholders informed |
| 308 | |
| 309 | ### During the Test |
| 310 | |
| 311 | **DO:** |
| 312 | Monitor for technical issues |
| 313 | Check segment quality |
| 314 | Document any external factors |
| 315 | |
| 316 | **DON'T:** |
| 317 | Peek at results and stop early |
| 318 | Make changes to variants |
| 319 | Add traffic from new sources |
| 320 | End early because you "know" the answer |
| 321 | |
| 322 | ### Peeking Problem |
| 323 | |
| 324 | Looking at results before reaching sample size and stopping when you see significance leads to: |
| 325 | False positives |
| 326 | Inflated effect sizes |
| 327 | Wrong decisions |
| 328 | |
| 329 | **Solutions:** |
| 330 | Pre-commit to sample size and stick to it |
| 331 | Use sequential testing if you must peek |
| 332 | Trust the process |
| 333 | |
| 334 | |
| 335 | |
| 336 | ## Analyzing Results |
| 337 | |
| 338 | ### Statistical Significance |
| 339 | |
| 340 | 95% confidence = p-value < 0.05 |
| 341 | Means: <5% chance result is random |
| 342 | Not a guarantee—just a threshold |
| 343 | |
| 344 | ### Practical Significance |
| 345 | |
| 346 | Statistical ≠ Practical |
| 347 | |
| 348 | Is the effect size meaningful for business? |
| 349 | Is it worth the implementation cost? |
| 350 | Is it sustainable over time? |
| 351 | |
| 352 | ### What to Look At |
| 353 | |
| 354 | **Did you reach sample size?** |
| 355 | If not, result is preliminary |
| 356 | |
| 357 | **Is it statistically significant?** |
| 358 | Check confidence intervals |
| 359 | Check p-value |
| 360 | |
| 361 | **Is the effect size meaningful?** |
| 362 | Compare to your MDE |
| 363 | Project business impact |
| 364 | |
| 365 | **Are secondary metrics consistent?** |
| 366 | Do they support the primary? |
| 367 | Any unexpected effects? |
| 368 | |
| 369 | **Any guardrail concerns?** |
| 370 | Did anything get worse? |
| 371 | Long-term risks? |
| 372 | |
| 373 | **Segment differences?** |
| 374 | Mobile vs. desktop? |
| 375 | New vs. returning? |
| 376 | Traffic source? |
| 377 | |
| 378 | ### Interpreting Results |
| 379 | |
| 380 | | Result | Conclusion | |
| 381 | |--------|------------| |
| 382 | | Significant winner | Implement variant | |
| 383 | | Significant loser | Keep control, learn why | |
| 384 | | No significant difference | Need more traffic or bolder test | |
| 385 | | Mixed signals | Dig deeper, maybe segment | |
| 386 | |
| 387 | |
| 388 | |
| 389 | ## Documenting and Learning |
| 390 | |
| 391 | ### Test Documentation |
| 392 | |
| 393 | |
| 394 | Test Name: [Name] |
| 395 | Test ID: [ID in testing tool] |
| 396 | Dates: [Start] - [End] |
| 397 | Owner: [Name] |
| 398 | |
| 399 | Hypothesis: |
| 400 | [Full hypothesis statement] |
| 401 | |
| 402 | Variants: |
| 403 | - Control: [Description + screenshot] |
| 404 | - Variant: [Description + screenshot] |
| 405 | |
| 406 | Results: |
| 407 | - Sample size: [achieved vs. target] |
| 408 | - Primary metric: [control] vs. [variant] ([% change], [confidence]) |
| 409 | - Secondary metrics: [summary] |
| 410 | - Segment insights: [notable differences] |
| 411 | |
| 412 | Decision: [Winner/Loser/Inconclusive] |
| 413 | Action: [What we're doing] |
| 414 | |
| 415 | Learnings: |
| 416 | [What we learned, what to test next] |
| 417 | |
| 418 | |
| 419 | ### Building a Learning Repository |
| 420 | |
| 421 | Central location for all tests |
| 422 | Searchable by page, element, outcome |
| 423 | Prevents re-running failed tests |
| 424 | Builds institutional knowledge |
| 425 | |
| 426 | |
| 427 | |
| 428 | ## Output Format |
| 429 | |
| 430 | ### Test Plan Document |
| 431 | |
| 432 | |
| 433 | # A/B Test: [Name] |
| 434 | |
| 435 | ## Hypothesis |
| 436 | [Full hypothesis using framework] |
| 437 | |
| 438 | ## Test Design |
| 439 | - Type: A/B / A/B/n / MVT |
| 440 | - Duration: X weeks |
| 441 | - Sample size: X per variant |
| 442 | - Traffic allocation: 50/50 |
| 443 | |
| 444 | ## Variants |
| 445 | [Control and variant descriptions with visuals] |
| 446 | |
| 447 | ## Metrics |
| 448 | - Primary: [metric and definition] |
| 449 | - Secondary: [list] |
| 450 | - Guardrails: [list] |
| 451 | |
| 452 | ## Implementation |
| 453 | - Method: Client-side / Server-side |
| 454 | - Tool: [Tool name] |
| 455 | - Dev requirements: [If any] |
| 456 | |
| 457 | ## Analysis Plan |
| 458 | - Success criteria: [What constitutes a win] |
| 459 | - Segment analysis: [Planned segments] |
| 460 | |
| 461 | |
| 462 | ### Results Summary |
| 463 | When test is complete |
| 464 | |
| 465 | ### Recommendations |
| 466 | Next steps based on results |
| 467 | |
| 468 | |
| 469 | |
| 470 | ## Common Mistakes |
| 471 | |
| 472 | ### Test Design |
| 473 | Testing too small a change (undetectable) |
| 474 | Testing too many things (can't isolate) |
| 475 | No clear hypothesis |
| 476 | Wrong audience |
| 477 | |
| 478 | ### Execution |
| 479 | Stopping early |
| 480 | Changing things mid-test |
| 481 | Not checking implementation |
| 482 | Uneven traffic allocation |
| 483 | |
| 484 | ### Analysis |
| 485 | Ignoring confidence intervals |
| 486 | Cherry-picking segments |
| 487 | Over-interpreting inconclusive results |
| 488 | Not considering practical significance |
| 489 | |
| 490 | |
| 491 | |
| 492 | ## Questions to Ask |
| 493 | |
| 494 | If you need more context: |
| 495 | What's your current conversion rate? |
| 496 | How much traffic does this page get? |
| 497 | What change are you considering and why? |
| 498 | What's the smallest improvement worth detecting? |
| 499 | What tools do you have for testing? |
| 500 | Have you tested this area before? |
| 501 | |
| 502 | |
| 503 | |
| 504 | ## Related Skills |
| 505 | |
| 506 | **page-cro**: For generating test ideas based on CRO principles |
| 507 | **analytics-tracking**: For setting up test measurement |
| 508 | **copywriting**: For creating variant copy |
| 509 |
Discussion
Alternatives
Browse more free Claude skills or everything in Marketing.