experiment

name	experiment
description	Use when a quest is ready for a concrete implementation pass or a main experiment run tied to a selected idea and an accepted baseline.

Experiment

Use this skill for the main evidence-producing runs of the quest.

Interaction discipline

• Follow the shared interaction contract injected by the system prompt.
• For ordinary active work, prefer a concise progress update once work has crossed roughly 6 tool calls with a human-meaningful delta, and do not drift beyond roughly 12 tool calls or about 8 minutes without a user-visible update.
• Keep ordinary subtask completions concise. When a main experiment actually finishes or reaches a stage-significant checkpoint, upgrade to a richer artifact.interact(kind='milestone', reply_mode='threaded', ...) report rather than another short progress line.
• That richer experiment-stage milestone report should normally cover: what run finished, the headline result versus baseline or expectation, the main caveat, and the exact recommended next action.
• That richer milestone report is still normally non-blocking. If the next route is already justified locally, continue automatically after reporting rather than idling for acknowledgment.
• If the active communication surface is QQ and QQ milestone media is enabled in config, a completed main experiment may attach one summary PNG to that richer milestone update.
• That PNG should be a connector-facing report chart, not a raw debug plot and not a draft paper figure.
• Do not auto-send every training curve, per-step plot, or intermediate slice image.
• Preferred connector-chart palettes are Morandi-like and restrained:
  • sage-clay: #E7E1D6, #B7A99A, #7F8F84 for the default QQ summary look
  • mist-stone: #F3EEE8, #D8D1C7, #8A9199 for conservative summaries
  • dust-rose: #F2E9E6, #D8C3BC, #B88C8C for secondary comparisons only
• Connector-facing chart requirements:
  • white or near-white background
  • low saturation, no neon colors
  • one primary accent plus one neutral comparison color whenever possible
  • simple legend, light grid, readable labels, and no dashboard clutter
  • summarize only the evidence needed for the milestone
• Default chart choice:
  • line chart for training / budget / step trends
  • bar chart for a small number of categorical end-point comparisons
  • point-range chart when uncertainty or seed spread matters
• If the figure encodes ordered magnitude, use a sequential muted palette; if it encodes signed delta around a reference, use a diverging muted palette with a neutral midpoint.
• Avoid rainbow / jet-like colormaps, 3D effects, and over-annotated dashboards.
• If the chart may later be reused in the paper, export a vector copy (pdf or svg) alongside the connector png.
• If the figure matters beyond transient debugging, open figure-polish/SKILL.md and follow its render-inspect-revise workflow before treating the image as final.
• If plotting in Python, reuse the fixed Morandi plotting starter from the system prompt rather than inventing a new bright style for each run.
• If the runtime starts an auto-continue turn with no new user message, continue from the current run state, logs, artifacts, and active requirements instead of replaying the previous user turn.
• Progress message templates are references only. Adapt to the actual context and vary wording so messages feel human, respectful, and non-robotic.
• If a threaded user reply arrives, interpret it relative to the latest experiment progress update before assuming the task changed completely.
• Hard execution rule: every terminal command in this stage must go through bash_exec; do not use any other terminal path for smoke tests, real runs, Git, Python, package-manager, or file-inspection commands.
• Prefer bash_exec for experiment commands so each run gets a durable session id, quest-local log folder, and later read/list/kill control.
• For meaningful long-running runs, include the estimated next reply time or next check-in window whenever it is defensible.

Stage purpose

The experiment stage should turn a selected idea into auditable evidence. It should preserve the strongest old experiment-planning and execution discipline:

• define the run contract before execution
• keep the run comparable to baseline
• capture configs, commands, logs, and metrics
• report both success and failure honestly
• route the next action through an explicit decision

The experiment stage is not just "run code". It is the stage that converts an idea contract into evidence that other stages can trust. It is also the stage that should decide the next route once the measured result exists. Within the user's explicit constraints, maximize valid evidence per unit time and compute. Prefer equivalence-preserving efficiency upgrades first: larger safe batch size, mixed precision, gradient accumulation, dataloader workers, cache reuse, checkpoint resume, precomputed features, and smaller pilots. If a proposed efficiency change alters optimization dynamics, effective budget, or baseline comparability, treat it as a real experiment change and record it as such.

Use references/evidence-ladder.md when deciding whether the current package is merely executable, solid enough to carry the main claim, or already in the stage where broader polish is justified.

Completing one main run is not quest completion. After reporting the run, keep moving to iterate, analyze, write, or finalize unless a genuine blocking decision remains.

When the quest is algorithm-first, treat experiment as the execution surface of optimize, not as the terminal goal of the workflow. After a measured result, the default next move is frontier review and optimize-side route selection rather than paper packaging.

Quick workflow

Treat this as the short run-order summary. The detailed run contract, execution rules, and recording rules remain in Workflow.

1. Restate the selected idea in 1-2 sentences and confirm the baseline comparison contract.
2. Before substantial code edits or the real main run, create PLAN.md and CHECKLIST.md.
3. Materialize or confirm a dedicated child run/* branch/worktree for this main experiment line; one durable main experiment should map to one run branch and one Canvas node.
4. Use PLAN.md to lock the concrete run path, and use CHECKLIST.md as the living control surface while planning, implementing, pilot testing, running, and validating.
5. Run a bounded smoke test or pilot before the real long run, then launch the real run with durable logging and monitor it through bash_exec.
6. Once the route is concrete, prefer one clean implementation pass, one bounded smoke or pilot run, and then one normal main run; retry only after a concrete failure, invalidity, or genuinely new evidence justifies another attempt.
7. Revise the plan if implementation, comparability, runtime, or route assumptions change materially, and close each real main-run milestone with a concise 1-2 sentence summary that says what was tested, whether performance improved / worsened / stayed mixed, and the exact next action.

Non-negotiable rules

• Do not fabricate metrics, logs, claims, or improvement narratives.
• Do not introduce a new dataset or silently change splits or evaluation protocol.
• Do not fetch large public datasets opportunistically; keep them as remote metadata until the experiment contract states the exact analysis use, storage budget, and cleanup/retention policy.
• Do not change metric definitions or evaluation logic unless the change is explicitly justified and durably recorded.
• Do not stop after a quick sanity run if the agreed goal is a real experiment.
• Do not claim success before durable artifacts exist and the acceptance gate passes.
• Implement the claimed mechanism, not a convenient shortcut that changes the theory.
• Keep the baseline reference read-only.
• Avoid asking the user to fix the environment unless there is no credible agent-side path left.
• Do not record a durable main experiment from an idea branch, quest root branch, or paper branch as if that were the final result node; every durable main experiment should land on its own run/* branch.
• After each artifact.record_main_experiment(...), route from the measured result:
  • if paper mode is enabled, decide whether to strengthen evidence, analyze, or write
  • if paper mode is disabled, prefer iterate / revise-idea / branch over default writing
• In algorithm-first work, after each main run, return to optimize or decision for frontier review before launching another large run.

Experiment mental guardrails

• Baseline reproduction is not wasted time; untrusted comparison is wasted time.
• Failed runs are still data when the delta and diagnosis are recorded clearly.
• Suspiciously good results deserve the same skepticism as obvious failures.
• Change less, learn more.
• If a retry does not add new evidence, it is budget burn rather than progress.

Use when

• a baseline is accepted
• an idea has been selected
• the evaluation contract is explicit
• the quest is ready for implementation and measurement

Do not use when

• the baseline gate is unresolved
• the idea stage still has unresolved tradeoffs
• the main need is writing or follow-up analysis rather than a main run

Preconditions and gate

Before a main run starts, confirm:

• selected idea or hypothesis
• baseline reference
• dataset and split
• primary metric
• stop condition
• resource budget
• dedicated run/* target branch or isolated worktree for this exact main experiment
• exact output location
• required metric keys for acceptance
• minimal experiment and abandonment condition from the idea stage

If any of these are materially unknown, stop and resolve them through decision.

Required plan and checklist

Before substantial implementation work or a real main run, create a quest-visible PLAN.md and CHECKLIST.md.

• Use references/main-experiment-plan-template.md as the canonical structure for PLAN.md.
• Use references/main-experiment-checklist-template.md as the canonical structure for CHECKLIST.md.
• PLAN.md should lead with the selected idea summarized in 1-2 sentences, put the user's explicit requirements and non-negotiable constraints first, and then make the run contract concrete: baseline and comparability rules, safe efficiency levers, code touchpoints, minimal code-change map, smoke / pilot path, full-run path, fallback options, monitoring and sleep rules, expected outputs, and a revision log.
• CHECKLIST.md is the living execution list; update it during planning, implementation, smoke testing, main execution, validation, and every material route change.
• If the code path, comparability contract, runtime strategy, or execution route changes materially, revise PLAN.md before spending more code or compute.
• The later RUN.md, summary.md, and artifact payloads remain required outputs, but PLAN.md and CHECKLIST.md are the canonical planning-and-control surface before and during execution.
• Once PLAN.md makes the implementation route concrete, do not keep reshaping code and commands speculatively. The normal default is one bounded smoke or pilot run and then one real run, with retries only after a documented failure, invalidity, or new evidence that changes the expected outcome.

Working-boundary rules

Only modify the active quest workspace for this experiment line.

• treat the accepted baseline workspace as read-only
• do not derive branch or worktree assumptions from guesswork
• keep all durable outputs inside the quest
• if the runtime gives an explicit worktree path, use it exactly

Resource and environment rules

• Follow the explicit resource assignment if one exists.
• If GPU assignment is explicit, respect it exactly and record it in the run manifest.
• Do not silently consume extra GPUs or broaden resource scope.
• Capture enough environment information that the run can later be reconstructed.
• If a new dependency appears necessary, record it as a risk and prefer a fallback if possible.

Truth sources

Use:

• idea-stage outputs
• baseline artifacts
• current codebase and configs
• recent decisions
• task and metric contract
• shell logs and generated outputs from the actual run
• bash_exec session ids, progress markers, and exported logs from the actual run
• the selected idea handoff contract
• incident or failure-pattern memory from earlier runs

Do not claim run success without durable outputs.

Required durable outputs

A meaningful experiment pass should leave behind:

• a run directory under artifacts/experiment/<run_id>/ or the quest-equivalent canonical location
• artifact_manifest.json
• run_manifest.json
• metrics.json
• metrics.md
• summary.md
• runlog.summary.md
• durable command, config, and log pointers
• exported shell log, typically bash.log
• a run artifact with explicit deltas versus baseline
• a decision about what should happen next

Recommended additional files:

• claim_validation.md
• environment snapshot files such as:
  • Python version
  • package freeze
  • GPU info when applicable
• a live execution note or rolling run log when the experiment spans multiple implementation or execution steps

run_manifest.json should capture at least:

• run_id
• quest / branch context
• baseline reference or commit
• full commands
• config paths and key resolved hyperparameters
• dataset identifier or version
• seeds
• environment snapshot paths
• start time, end time, and final status

If a command needed for environment capture is unavailable, record that gap in the manifest and summary.

Workflow

1. Define the run contract

Before implementation or execution, state:

• run_id
• experiment tier: auxiliary/dev or main/test
• research question
• null hypothesis
• alternative hypothesis
• hypothesis
• baseline id or variant
• metric targets
• expected changed files
• expected outputs
• stop condition
• compute or runtime budget
• minimal experiment
• abandonment condition
• strongest alternative hypothesis
• exact metric keys that will decide success or failure

Prefer to write this contract first in PLAN.md using references/main-experiment-plan-template.md, then keep the current execution state visible in CHECKLIST.md using references/main-experiment-checklist-template.md.

For substantial runs, also record the following seven experiment fields early and keep them updated during execution:

1. research question
2. research type
3. research objective
4. experimental setup
5. experimental results
6. experimental analysis
7. experimental conclusions

If the run contract changes materially later, record the change durably.

Treat the run contract as a research question contract, not only an execution checklist. Before coding, be able to explain:

• why this run is the best current route rather than the main alternatives
• what observation would count as a real answer to the research question
• what result would force a downgrade, retry, or route change
• what confounder would make the run non-comparable even if it finishes successfully

If multiple candidate experiment packages exist, prefer the one with the best balance of:

• technical feasibility
• research importance
• methodological rigor

Do not choose a package only because it sounds ambitious.

For paper-facing lines, default to this evidence ladder:

• auxiliary/dev
  • clarify parameters, settings, mechanisms, or diagnostics
• main/test
  • carry the core comparison the paper will rely on
• minimum -> solid -> maximum
  • first make the result executable and comparable
  • then make it strong enough to carry the claim
  • only then spend effort on broader supporting polish

2. Run a preflight check

Before editing or executing:

• confirm the dataset path, version, and split contract
• confirm the baseline metrics reference
• if durable state exposes active_baseline_metric_contract_json, read that JSON file before planning commands or comparisons
• treat active_baseline_metric_contract_json as the default authoritative baseline comparison contract unless you record a concrete reason to override it
• confirm the selected idea claim and code-level plan
• look up prior incidents or repeated failure patterns when available
• confirm output directories and naming
• confirm that the intended run still matches the current quest decision

If a repeated failure pattern already exists, apply the mitigation first and record that choice.

Also confirm before comparison work:

• the baseline verification is trustworthy enough
• the planned comparison still uses the same metric contract
• the metric keys and primary metric still match active_baseline_metric_contract_json when that file is available
• every main experiment submission still covers all required baseline metric ids from active_baseline_metric_contract_json; extra metrics are allowed, but missing required metrics are not
• the required baseline metrics still use the same evaluation code and metric definitions; if an extra evaluator is genuinely necessary, record it as supplementary output rather than replacing the canonical comparator
• if the run is main/test and superiority is likely to be claimed, define the significance-testing plan before execution rather than after seeing the numbers
• if Result/metric.md was used during the run, treat it as optional scratch memory only and reconcile it against the final submitted metrics before artifact.record_main_experiment(...)

Before you begin a substantial run, send a concise threaded artifact.interact(kind='progress', ...) update naming:

• the run contract you are about to execute
• the main evidence it is testing
• the expected durable outputs
• the next checkpoint for reporting back

2.1 Diagnostic mode trigger

Switch from ordinary execution mode into diagnosis mode when any of the following becomes true:

• two retries in a row add no new evidence or no interpretable delta
• the baseline gap is much larger than expected and the cause is unclear
• the metrics are suspiciously strong, suspiciously identical to baseline, or highly unstable
• logs, checkpoints, or intermediate outputs conflict with the claimed behavior

In diagnosis mode:

• stop brute-force retrying
• prefer the smallest discriminative test that can separate competing hypotheses
• resolve obvious environment or data-contract issues before launching another comparison run
• make the diagnosis goal explicit: explain the behavior, not just "try something else"

3. Confirm the execution workspace

The normal experiment workspace is the current active idea worktree returned by artifact.submit_idea(...).

• do not create a fresh manual branch for the main experiment unless recovery or debugging truly requires it
• implement and run inside the current active idea workspace
• if the idea package changes materially before execution, submit a new durable idea branch with artifact.submit_idea(mode='create', lineage_intent='continue_line'|'branch_alternative', ...) instead of silently mutating the old node
• after a real main run finishes, record it with artifact.record_main_experiment(...) before moving to analysis or writing
• once that durable main result exists, treat the branch as a fixed round node; a later new optimization round should usually compare foundations and create a new continue_line child branch or branch_alternative sibling-like branch
• after artifact.record_main_experiment(...), if QQ milestone media is enabled and the metrics are stable enough to summarize honestly, prefer one concise summary PNG over multiple attachments

4. Implement the minimum required change

Implementation rules:

• keep the change hypothesis-bound
• prefer small, explainable edits
• avoid unrelated cleanup during a main run
• record which files matter for later review
• preserve theory fidelity between the idea claim and the code change
• add robustness checks when the mechanism risks NaN, inf, or unstable behavior
• implement according to the current PLAN.md instead of repeatedly improvising a new method after each small observation
• avoid repeated code churn between the smoke test and the real run unless the smoke test exposes a specific problem that the next change is meant to fix

Prefer to complete one experiment cleanly before expanding to the next, unless parallel execution is explicitly justified and isolated. For substantial experiment packages, the default is one experiment at a time, with each one reaching a recoverable recorded state before the next begins.

Retry-delta discipline:

• unless the current state is completely non-executable, change only one major variable per retry
• if broader recovery is unavoidable, record exactly which layer changed: data, preprocessing, model, objective, optimization, evaluation, or environment
• before each retry, state the expected effect and the fastest falsification signal
• if the retry produced no interpretable delta, do not treat it as meaningful evidence about the underlying research hypothesis

5. Execute the run

Run with auditable commands and durable outputs.

Execution rules:

• use non-interactive commands
• prefer bash_exec instead of ephemeral shell invocations
• use the intended dataset and split
• keep logs durable
• report progress for long runs
• avoid silent metric-definition changes
• do not drift away from active_baseline_metric_contract_json silently when that file exists
• avoid silently changing the baseline comparison recipe
• run the full agreed evaluation, not only a smoke test

You may do a quick sanity run first, but if the stage goal is a real experiment you must continue to the real evaluation unless the run is blocked and recorded.

Pilot-before-scale rule:

• start with a bounded pilot when the modification is non-trivial
• use the pilot to catch implementation mistakes early
• record pilot outcomes explicitly
• do not mistake pilot success for final evidence

Incremental-recording rule:

• do not wait until the end to reconstruct the run from memory
• update the durable run note after:
  • contract definition
  • important code changes
  • pilot validation
  • full execution checkpoints
  • post-run analysis
• update CHECKLIST.md alongside those durable notes so the current execution frontier is obvious without replaying the whole log
• include timestamps when they materially help reconstruction
• preserve failed attempts, anomalies, and partial outcomes rather than overwriting them

Last-known-good rule:

• keep track of the most recent state that was executable, comparable, and explainable
• when a new attempt breaks that state, debug forward from the last-known-good point instead of stacking more speculative edits on top of the broken state
• if the last-known-good state is unclear, reconstruct it before spending more budget on new hypotheses

5.1 Long-running command protocol

For commands that may run longer than a few minutes:

• before the real long run, execute a bounded smoke test or pilot that validates command paths, outputs, and basic metrics
• once the smoke test passes, launch the real run with bash_exec(mode='detach', ...) and normally leave timeout_seconds unset for that long run
• monitor through durable logs rather than only live terminal output
• bash_exec(mode='read', id=...) returns the full rendered log when it is 2000 lines or fewer; for longer logs it returns the first 500 lines plus the last 1500 lines and a hint to inspect omitted sections with start and tail
• if the middle of a long saved log matters, inspect that omitted region with bash_exec(mode='read', id=..., start=..., tail=...)
• use bash_exec(mode='list') and bash_exec(mode='read', id=..., tail_limit=..., order='desc') to monitor or revisit managed commands while focusing on the newest evidence first
• after the first read, prefer bash_exec(mode='read', id=..., after_seq=last_seen_seq, tail_limit=..., order='asc') so later checks only fetch new evidence
• if you need to recover ids or sanity-check the active session ordering, use bash_exec(mode='history')
• launch important runs with a structured comment such as {stage, goal, action, expected_signal, next_check}
• use silent_seconds, progress_age_seconds, signal_age_seconds, and watchdog_overdue from bash_exec(mode='list'|'read', ...) as your default watchdog signals
• use an explicit wait-and-check loop such as:
  • wait about 60s, then inspect logs
  • wait about 120s, then inspect logs
  • wait about 300s, then inspect logs
  • wait about 600s, then inspect logs
  • wait about 1800s, then inspect logs
  • then keep checking about every 1800s while the run is still active
• if needed, use an explicit bounded wait such as bash_exec(command='sleep 60', mode='await', timeout_seconds=70) or bash_exec(mode='await', id=..., wait_timeout_seconds=1800) between checks
• canonical sleep choice:
  • if you only need wall-clock waiting between checks, use bash_exec(command='sleep N', mode='await', timeout_seconds=N+buffer, ...)
  • keep a real buffer on that sleep timeout; do not set timeout_seconds exactly equal to N
  • if you are waiting on an already running managed session, prefer bash_exec(mode='await', id=..., wait_timeout_seconds=1800) instead of starting a new sleep command
  • if that bounded await returns while the session is still running, treat that as expected managed-monitoring behavior; read logs and inspect real progress before deciding whether another 1800s wait is justified
• after every completed sleep / await cycle, inspect logs first; only send artifact.interact(kind='progress', ...) when the user-visible state, frontier, blocker status, or ETA materially changed
• after the first meaningful signal and then at real checkpoints (e.g., completion, recovery, blocker, or a materially widened comparable surface), keep those progress updates going rather than waiting silently
• if the run is clearly invalid, wedged, or superseded, stop it with bash_exec(mode='kill', id=..., wait=true, timeout_seconds=...); if it must die immediately, add force=true, record the reason, fix the issue, and relaunch cleanly
• do not report completion until logs and output files both confirm completion

Always preserve the managed bash_exec log and export it into the experiment artifact directory when the run artifact is written.

5.2 Progress marker protocol

Long loops should emit structured progress markers rather than noisy raw progress bars.

• use single-line JSON progress markers
• keep them throttled
• treat them as UI signals, not narrative prose
• do not paste raw progress lines into summaries
• when possible include eta in seconds and next_reply_at or next_check_at so web/TUI can show the next expected update

If you control the code, prefer a throttled tqdm-style progress reporter for the run itself and pair it with concise structured __DS_PROGRESS__ lines when feasible so monitoring remains machine-readable.

6. Validate the outputs

After the run, verify:

• outputs correspond to the intended code/config
• metrics are complete and interpretable
• comparison to baseline is fair
• any failure mode or confounder is visible
• required metric keys are present and finite
• the result can be mapped back to the original claim
• the summary states a clear go or no-go recommendation

Create a durable claim-validation record that maps:

• claim
• metric key
• expected direction
• observed result
• verdict:
  • supported
  • refuted
  • inconclusive

Also verify baseline comparability before claiming deltas:

• was the baseline verification stable?
• was the evaluation path the same?
• are the compared metric keys identical?
• if the run is claim-carrying, are the significance results or uncertainty estimates strong enough for main-text use?
• do known caveats make the delta weaker than it first appears?

7. Record the run

Every meaningful main run must be recorded through artifact.record_main_experiment(...).

That call is responsible for writing:

• experiments/main/<run_id>/RUN.md
• experiments/main/<run_id>/RESULT.json
• the durable run artifact payload
• baseline comparisons
• breakthrough status derived by the system

artifact.record_main_experiment(...) should include at least:

• run_id
• title
• hypothesis
• setup
• execution
• results
• conclusion
• baseline reference
• metrics_summary
• metric_rows when available
• the metric contract actually used
• verdict
• evidence paths
• changed files
• relevant config paths when applicable
• evaluation_summary with exactly these six fields:
  • takeaway
  • claim_update
  • baseline_relation
  • comparability
  • failure_mode
  • next_action

Use evaluation_summary as the short structured judgment layer on top of the longer narrative fields:

• takeaway: one sentence the next reader can reuse directly
• claim_update: strengthens, weakens, narrows, or neutral
• baseline_relation: better, worse, mixed, or not_comparable
• comparability: high, medium, or low
• failure_mode: none, implementation, evaluation, environment, or direction
• next_action: the immediate route such as continue, revise_idea, analysis_campaign, write, or stop

After artifact.record_main_experiment(...) succeeds, do not assume the same branch should absorb the next round by default. Interpret the measured result first, then either:

• launch analysis from this branch, or
• compare candidate foundations and create the next child research branch

Use artifact.create_analysis_campaign(...) only when the extra slices have clear academic or claim-level value relative to their resource cost. If the main need is simply to continue optimization from a measured result, prefer a new durable child idea branch instead of an expensive analysis package by reflex. If the extra work should happen on an older durable branch rather than the current head, first switch the runtime back there with artifact.activate_branch(...), then launch the analysis campaign from that activated workspace.

When artifact.record_main_experiment(...) succeeds, send a richer threaded artifact.interact(kind='milestone', ...) update rather than a generic one-line progress ping. Lead that milestone with a concise 1-2 sentence outcome summary before expanding into more detail. That milestone should state:

• the research question that was tested
• the primary result and baseline delta
• whether the run supports, weakens, or leaves the idea inconclusive
• the main caveat or confidence note that still matters
• the exact recommended next move

Do not treat a main run as durably complete until artifact.record_main_experiment(...) succeeds.

Recommended per-run documentation fields:

1. research question
2. research type
3. research objective
4. experimental setup
5. experimental results
6. experimental analysis
7. experimental conclusions

These seven fields should be progressively filled as the run advances, not only at final packaging time.

RUN.md should make it easy for later stages to answer:

• what changed?
• how can this run be reproduced?
• what are the main results?
• why did it work or fail?
• what should happen next?

When the run is analysis-heavy or meant to fill a writing evidence gap, prefer a structured summary with:

1. research question
2. research type
3. objective and success criteria
4. setup
5. results
6. analysis
7. conclusion

Recording rules:

• record results incrementally, not only at the end
• include timestamps when helpful
• include failed attempts, partial runs, and unexpected outcomes
• do not leave placeholder sections for later if the information is already known
• report exactly what happened, not what you hoped would happen

8. Decide the next move

The experiment stage should normally end with one of:

• continue the current line
• branch a new line
• launch an analysis campaign
• move to writing
• reset or stop

Do not let the stage end without an explicit next direction. If analysis is selected, record why the expected information gain is strong enough to justify the added compute, time, or annotation budget.

Run-quality rules

A credible main run should satisfy:

• comparable against baseline
• method change is knowable from code and config
• metric source is durable
• outcome can be explained by the intended intervention or its failure
• commands, configs, and seeds are reconstructable
• environment context is reconstructable
• frontend or later readers can trace code and diff context to command, logs, and metrics

If the result is confounded, say so directly.

Acceptance gate

Before marking the run complete, verify all of the following:

• all required baseline metric keys are present
• the reported comparison contract still matches active_baseline_metric_contract_json when that file exists
• metric values are finite numbers
• claim-to-metric traceability is recorded
• run manifest includes exact command, config, seed, and environment snapshot
• the summary states go or no-go and why
• artifacts are sufficient for another stage to reconstruct the run

If these checks fail, record the run as partial or blocked rather than pretending it is complete.

Memory rules

Stage-start requirement:

• begin every experiment pass with memory.list_recent(scope='quest', limit=5)
• then run at least one experiment-relevant memory.search(...) before a new run, retry, or material execution change
• if several idea or experiment lines exist, narrow retrieval to the current idea_id, branch, and run_id; do not casually reuse memory from another idea line unless you are explicitly comparing lines

Write to memory only when the lesson is reusable, such as:

• experiment failure patterns
• stable implementation lessons
• evaluation pitfalls
• validated mechanism scope and caveats

The canonical record of the run itself belongs in artifact, not only in memory.

Preferred memory usage:

• quest ideas:
  • the current idea contract and claim boundary
• quest decisions:
  • run-scope choices
  • retry or branch decisions
  • stop conditions that must not drift
• quest episodes:
  • failed runs
  • debugging episodes
  • suspicious-result investigations
  • repeated infrastructure or resource failures
• quest knowledge:
  • validated mechanism scope
  • evaluation caveats
  • stable implementation lessons worth reusing in later runs of this quest
• global knowledge:
  • reusable debugging heuristics
  • stable reproducibility lessons
  • cross-quest experiment design playbooks
• global templates:
  • run-manifest patterns
  • claim-validation templates
  • experiment summary templates

Use tags to refine retrieval when helpful, for example:

• stage:experiment
• type:failure-pattern
• type:metric-contract
• type:claim-validation
• topic:<mechanism>

When calling memory.write(...), pass tags as an array like ["stage:experiment", "type:failure-pattern", "topic:<mechanism>"], not as one comma-joined string.

Recommended read timing:

• before the first run:
  • consult quest ideas, decisions, and relevant knowledge
• before a retry:
  • search quest episodes first
• before changing execution strategy materially:
  • re-check quest decisions
• after suspicious results:
  • consult recent episodes and stable debugging knowledge

Stage-end requirement:

• successful runs should leave at least one reusable knowledge note if the lesson generalizes
• failed or partial runs should leave an incident note when the failure pattern is reusable
• every experiment memory.write(...) must state whether the outcome was success, partial, or failure
• every experiment memory.write(...) should also include the current idea_id, branch, and run_id so later retrieval does not mix different experiment lines

Artifact rules

Typical artifact sequence:

• progress artifact for long runs
• artifact.record_main_experiment(...) at main-run completion
• milestone or report artifact for major findings
• decision artifact to choose next stage

Preferred artifact choices:

• use progress for long-running execution updates
• use artifact.record_main_experiment(...) for each meaningful completed main experiment
• use run for analysis slice records when artifact.record_analysis_slice(...) writes them
• use report for:
  • analysis-rich summaries
  • suspicious-result investigations
  • post-run interpretation
• use milestone when a major stage checkpoint is reached
• use decision for:
  • continue
  • branch
  • analysis
  • write
  • reset
  • stop
• use approval when an explicit user approval is captured for an expensive or risky run change

Use artifact.checkpoint(...) when code evolution is meaningful and should be preserved in Git. After a meaningful experiment checkpoint or completion, emit artifact.interact(kind='progress' | 'milestone', ...) so the user sees the concrete result and next step.

Failure and blocked handling

A failed main run is still useful if it is explained well.

Record:

• what was attempted
• where the failure occurred
• whether the failure is likely methodological or infrastructural
• what retry, branch, or reset is justified
• the single best next action

Prefer a primary failure type such as:

• data_contract_mismatch
• resource_exhausted
• numeric_instability
• implementation_bug
• evaluation_pipeline_failure
• external_dependency_blocked
• direction_underperforming

Also classify the broader failure layer when possible:

• implementation
• evaluation
• environment
• direction

Do not collapse these into one bucket. A direction should only be treated as failing when repeated, well-instrumented evidence still points to underperformance after implementation, evaluation, and environment explanations have been checked.

Blocked experiment states commonly include:

• missing baseline reference
• unknown metric contract
• environment failure
• run failed before producing metrics
• metrics produced but not comparable

When results are suspicious, such as identical to baseline, implausibly perfect, or inconsistent across repeats, diagnose systematically:

1. fix the subset and seeds
2. isolate preprocessing, tokenization, model init, training, and evaluation one by one
3. compare intermediate outputs on the same inputs
4. align inputs first, then outputs, then metrics

Default diagnosis loop:

1. collect the concrete failure or anomaly cases
2. identify the last-known-good comparable state
3. define the smallest delta between working and broken states
4. write 2-4 concrete hypotheses
5. run the cheapest discriminative check before another full retry

Exit criteria

Exit the experiment stage once one of the following is durably true:

• a main run is completed and recorded
• the run failed and the blocker is durably recorded
• the next step is clearly analysis-campaign, write, another experiment, or reset