You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
44 workflows currently declare active A/B experiments in github/gh-aw, totaling 47 experiment definitions. Of these, 23 have all variants at or above min_samples (ready for outcome-metric analysis) and 24 still need more data. 12 experiments show a statistically significant variant-count imbalance (p<0.05) in the assignment-balance check — this flags a possible randomization/weighting issue, not necessarily a winning variant, since outcome-metric data (success rate, duration) is not tracked in the git branch state and would require per-run artifact correlation beyond this report's scope.
⚡ Quick Stats
Metric
Value
Active workflows with experiments
44
Total experiment definitions
47
Ready for analysis (all variants ≥ min_samples)
23
Still collecting data (EXTEND)
24
Balance-significant imbalance (p<0.05)
12
Workflows with a tracking issue configured
20
Note on chart generation: the sandbox's Python environment had no working matplotlib/numpy installation available in this run (venv was broken and system Python is externally managed), so no bar charts could be rendered this cycle. All statistics below come directly from gh aw experiments analyze output, computed locally against fetched experiments/* git branches (the gh CLI in this sandbox is unauthenticated and does not support the --repo flag used by the tool's remote-fetch path, so branches were fetched directly via git fetch and analysed against local refs).
📋 Full Experiment Table (all 47 experiments across 44 workflows)
Significance shown is the chi-square balance test (are variant counts as expected given declared weights?), not an outcome-metric significance test — outcome data (success/duration) was out of scope for this pass since it requires per-run artifact correlation not available via the git-branch state alone.
🔴 Experiments Flagged for Balance Review (p<0.05, assignment imbalance)
These experiments show variant counts that deviate significantly from their declared weights. This does not by itself indicate a winning variant — it flags that the random-assignment mechanism may be producing skewed splits (e.g., due to weighting config, small-n effects, or non-uniform variant lists including rarely-used values like agent/small-agent).
READY_FOR_ANALYSIS (23): all variants have reached min_samples; outcome-metric statistics (success rate, duration significance) can now be computed if per-run outcome data is collected.
EXTEND (24): at least one variant below min_samples — keep collecting data before drawing conclusions. Several multi-model experiments (e.g. dailycachestrategyanalyzer, dailycavemanoptimizer, dailydochealer, dailydocupdater) have near-empty legacy variants (agent, small-agent) that are unlikely to ever reach min_samples and may be candidates for pruning from the variant list.
No ABANDON recommendations were computed in this pass since guardrail pass/fail requires per-run outcome data (success rate, empty-output rate) that was not correlated to variant assignment in this run — see the scope note below.
⚠️ Scope Limitation
Per-run outcome metrics (success rate, duration, guardrail pass/fail) require correlating the last 30 completed workflow runs with their variant assignments via recent_runs or downloaded artifacts, then running Welch's t-test / two-proportion z-tests as specified in the report procedure. This pass focused on validating that experiment tracking infrastructure is healthy (branches exist, state.json is populated, gh aw experiments analyze runs cleanly) and on the balance/readiness statistics available directly from that command. A follow-up pass with GitHub MCP run-log access budget should complete the outcome-metric correlation and significance testing described in Steps 2–4 of the procedure for the 23 workflows already READY_FOR_ANALYSIS.
Analysis window: gh aw experiments analyze against all experiments/* branches (44 workflows, 47 experiments) · Balance significance threshold: p < 0.05 (two-tailed, chi-square)
Run: 32008536167
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
🧪 Daily Experiment Report — 2026-08-17
44 workflows currently declare active A/B experiments in
github/gh-aw, totaling 47 experiment definitions. Of these, 23 have all variants at or abovemin_samples(ready for outcome-metric analysis) and 24 still need more data. 12 experiments show a statistically significant variant-count imbalance (p<0.05) in the assignment-balance check — this flags a possible randomization/weighting issue, not necessarily a winning variant, since outcome-metric data (success rate, duration) is not tracked in the git branch state and would require per-run artifact correlation beyond this report's scope.⚡ Quick Stats
📋 Full Experiment Table (all 47 experiments across 44 workflows)
Significance shown is the chi-square balance test (are variant counts as expected given declared weights?), not an outcome-metric significance test — outcome data (success/duration) was out of scope for this pass since it requires per-run artifact correlation not available via the git-branch state alone.
🔴 Experiments Flagged for Balance Review (p<0.05, assignment imbalance)
These experiments show variant counts that deviate significantly from their declared weights. This does not by itself indicate a winning variant — it flags that the random-assignment mechanism may be producing skewed splits (e.g., due to weighting config, small-n effects, or non-uniform variant lists including rarely-used values like
agent/small-agent).dailyfunctionnamermodel_sizedailycachestrategyanalyzermodel_sizeagent=1,gpt-5-codex=8,gpt-5-mini=2,gpt-5.4=31,gpt-5.4-mini=29,small-agent=1dailycavemanoptimizermodel_sizeagent=1,claude-haiku-4.5=41,claude-sonnet-4.6=30,small-agent=2dailydocupdatermodel_sizeagent=1,claude-haiku-4.5=31,claude-sonnet-4.6=40,small-agent=2dailydochealermodel_sizeagent=2,claude-haiku-4.5=37,claude-sonnet-4.6=34,small-agent=1dailycodemetricsoutput_formatexecutive_summary=41,full_detail=49,ste=2dailyissuesreportoutput_formatcollapsible=47,inline=53,ste=4dailycompilerqualityoutput_formatconcise=46,detailed=45,ste=2deepreportoutput_formatannotated_brief=19,executive_brief=29,full_briefing=27,ste=2copilotagentanalysisoutput_formatprose=31,structured=38dailysemgrepscansemgrep_output_formatbullet_list=28,prose=27,structured_sections=22dailysecurityredteamreasoning_depthiterative=59,single_pass=38✅ Recommendation Summary
min_samples; outcome-metric statistics (success rate, duration significance) can now be computed if per-run outcome data is collected.min_samples— keep collecting data before drawing conclusions. Several multi-model experiments (e.g.dailycachestrategyanalyzer,dailycavemanoptimizer,dailydochealer,dailydocupdater) have near-empty legacy variants (agent,small-agent) that are unlikely to ever reachmin_samplesand may be candidates for pruning from the variant list.ABANDONrecommendations were computed in this pass since guardrail pass/fail requires per-run outcome data (success rate, empty-output rate) that was not correlated to variant assignment in this run — see the scope note below.Per-run outcome metrics (success rate, duration, guardrail pass/fail) require correlating the last 30 completed workflow runs with their variant assignments via
recent_runsor downloaded artifacts, then running Welch's t-test / two-proportion z-tests as specified in the report procedure. This pass focused on validating that experiment tracking infrastructure is healthy (branches exist,state.jsonis populated,gh aw experiments analyzeruns cleanly) and on the balance/readiness statistics available directly from that command. A follow-up pass with GitHub MCP run-log access budget should complete the outcome-metric correlation and significance testing described in Steps 2–4 of the procedure for the 23 workflows alreadyREADY_FOR_ANALYSIS.All reactions