| name | google-ads-experiments |
| description | Designs disciplined A/B tests for Google Ads โ campaign-level splits (bidding, brand exclusion, new- customer mode, split structure) and asset-group/ad-group-level splits โ changing one variable at a time with a feasibility check, clear success criteria, and minimum runtime. Prevents "testing by spawning random campaigns". Reads account-context.yaml. Use when the user says "experiment", "A/B test", "split test", "which works better", "test budget/bidding/audience".
|
Google Ads โ Experiments
Turn a "let's test X" into a clean experiment: one variable, enough volume to learn something, a defined
readout. This is how the split menus in the builders get validated โ not by guessing.
Model dispatch (run cheap, decide expensive) โ see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/model-tier-dispatch.md
- Scout (
haiku) โ STEP 2 significance.py run.
- Routine (
sonnet) โ pulling conversions-per-arm estimates / recent volume for the feasibility check. Dispatch as general-purpose; return raw numbers.
- Judge (main session) โ STEP 1 variable choice, STEP 3 design + decision rule, STEP 4 platform mapping, STEP 5 readout call (against the pre-stated rule, not early noise). The power math is mechanical; designing a test that can conclude is judgment.
STEP 1 โ Pick ONE variable
From the catalog (campaign-level: bidding strategy, tROAS level, brand-exclusion on/off, new-customer mode,
split structure A vs B from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/pmax-split-strategies.md; ad-group/asset-group-level: copy theme,
audience signal, landing page). Change exactly one โ never bundle variables (you won't know what moved).
STEP 2 โ Feasibility check (don't run a test that can't conclude)
Using ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/forecasting-and-benchmarks.md, estimate conversions per arm over the planned runtime.
If each arm won't accumulate enough conversions to detect a meaningful difference, say so and either:
extend the runtime, increase budget, pick a higher-volume variable, or skip the test. A test too small
to reach significance is worse than no test โ it invites false conclusions.
Runnable check: python ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/experiments/scripts/significance.py --conv-per-arm N [--mde 0.15] โ
smallest detectable lift + whether the run is powered for your target effect.
STEP 3 โ Design
- Control vs variant, 50/50 split, one variable.
- Primary success metric (e.g. ROAS, CPA, conversions) + guardrail metrics (don't win on CPA while
tanking volume).
- Minimum runtime (cover learning + at least 2-4 weeks; avoid mid-experiment changes).
- Pre-state the decision rule: what result ships the variant, what reverts it.
STEP 4 โ Map to the platform
Prefer native Google Ads Experiments / campaign drafts where the campaign type supports them; otherwise
describe the manual A/B setup. Note PMax's experiment support and limits for the chosen variable.
STEP 5 โ Readout criteria
When to call it: enough volume + runtime elapsed. Judge against the pre-stated rule and significance, not a
gut read of early noise. Output: winner, confidence, and the next action (ship / revert / iterate). Respect
the change-event cooldown when applying the result via pusher.
Guardrails
- One variable at a time. No mid-flight changes. No calling a winner before the runtime/volume threshold.
- Honor
margin_tiers when the metric is ROAS (compare within a tier, not across).
To build / refine later
