Individual skill
issta-experiments
Use when designing or auditing ISSTA experiments, covering real subject programs and benchmarks like Defects4J, fair tool-baseline configuration, bug-finding and coverage metrics, non-parametric comparison with effect sizes, equal-budget protocols, repeated runs, and matching evidence to the claim being made.
ISSTA-Skills/skills/issta-experiments/SKILL.md
Source commit 932eb23331721b16e967c59f093781be1928b498
What was checked
- Matches the observed repository HEAD
- Yes
- Scanner rules are current
- No
- Repository scan complete
- No
- Skill scan complete
- Yes
- Observed behavior
- Not checked yet
- Last checked
- Nov 9, 2026
These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.
Install this skill
Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.
An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.
Repository context
- Repository stars (not skill ratings)
- 1,411
- Repository last updated
- Sep 27, 2026
- License
- MIT
Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.
- academic-writing Repository topic
- agent-skills Repository topic
- journal Repository topic
- academic-research Repository topic
- ai-agents Repository topic
- anthropic Repository topic
- awesome-list Repository topic
- claude Repository topic
- claude-code Repository topic
- economics Repository topic
- engineering Derived category
Files and excerpt
File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.
Browse files
SKILL.mdcore · 4,576 bytes
Read excerpt
# ISSTA Experiments
Use this before submission when the evaluation is not yet locked. ISSTA experiments earn or lose the
paper on the evaluation criterion, and the reviewer pool knows the standard subjects, baselines, and
statistics — so design the study to answer the exact claim, on subjects a reviewer recognizes.
## Experiment audit
- Match each claim to its evidence: a bug-finding claim needs a benchmark with ground truth, a
coverage claim needs a measurement protocol, a scalability claim needs a size sweep.
- Use real subjects and established benchmarks where they exist — Defects4J for Java faults,
real-world CVEs for security bugs, standard fuzzing corpora — so results are comparable to prior
work, not to a private subject set.
- Configure baselines fairly and at an **equal budget**: same time, same seeds, same subjects. A