crucible

Enforce gated scientific pipelines for AI-driven experiments with pre-registration and power analysis.

Updated Jul 9, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/nagisanzenin/crucible --skill crucible-nagisanzenin
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: crucible
Source: https://github.com/nagisanzenin/crucible/tree/main/skills/crucible
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/nagisanzenin/crucible --skill crucible-nagisanzenin

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes scripts (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

This skill prevents AI agents from producing unreliable research by enforcing hard gates on pre-registration, sample size calculation, and blind independent judging, ensuring conclusions are defensible rather than built on sand.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Pre-registration Lock: Hashes and freezes study designs to prevent HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known).
  • Statistical Power Enforcement: Automatically computes required sample sizes to ensure studies are adequately powered.
  • Blind Independent Judging: Orchestrates a separate agent to score outputs without bias, blocking conclusions if the judge is unqualified.
  • Use Case: Use this when conducting A/B tests, model evaluations, or ablations where the integrity of the conclusion is critical for downstream product decisions.

Quick Start

Use the crucible skill to initialize a new study with the goal of comparing the correctness of two different prompt strategies.

Frequently Asked Questions about crucible

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I prevent HARKing when running AI-driven A/B testing and model evaluation experiments?

Statistical power enforcement automatically computes the required sample sizes for experimentation, ensuring your A/B tests and model evaluations are adequately powered to detect meaningful effects before data collection begins.

How do I eliminate bias when using AI agents to score experimental outputs in ablation studies?

To eliminate bias in ablation studies, you can orchestrate blind independent judging where a separate agent scores outputs without exposure to condition labels, blocking conclusions if the judge lacks qualification.

What is the best way to ensure statistical validity and defensibility in AI-driven research pipelines?

The best way to ensure statistical validity is to apply a gated pipeline that hard-blocks conclusions unless pre-registration, sample size calculation, and blind judging requirements are fully satisfied.

Do I need a pre-registered study design to run model evaluation comparisons with this scientific method approach?

Yes, pre-registration is required. The pipeline hashes and freezes your study design before execution to prevent HARKing, ensuring your model evaluation conclusions remain defensible.

When should I not use automated statistical power enforcement for data analysis?

You should not use automated statistical power enforcement for data analysis when your research goal is exploratory rather than confirmatory, as the gated pipeline requires formal hypotheses and pre-registration to function correctly.