Menu

Individual skill

principle-explain-the-number

0upvotes

Apply before you trust, report, or act on a number you measured: a speedup, a regression, a throughput, a latency, or an eval result. Find what limits it, and rule out that it measured something other than the work you think.

skills/principle-explain-the-number/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 09909ebb5c0125e27fad3e57d96b81e832696d69

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 6, 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)
162
Repository last updated
Oct 5, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Explain the Number

A measured number is a claim about a system. Before you trust it, report it, or act on it, find what limits it and rule out that it measured something else.

**Why:** A run that went wrong still prints a plausible number. Requests that failed, a cache that skipped the work, code that never ran, a side left on default settings, and run-to-run noise all produce results that look fine. If you cannot say why the number is not twice as good, you do not know what you measured.

**Pattern:**

- **Ask "why not double?"** Name the resource or code path that bounds the result, such as a core, a lock, the disk, the network, or the load generator itself. Get it from a profile or from system counters taken during a run, then map it to source. A guess from reading the code is not a limiter.
- **List what else the number could be measuring, and rule out each one with evidence.** The usual suspects are errors, skipped or cached work, an untuned side, noise, and a piece too small to matter end to end.
- **Keep the evidence with the number.** Put the run count, the spread, and the limiter in the notes or a linked artifact, so a reader can check the claim.

For a performance number, run the full procedure with the [benchmark-checklist](../benchmark-checklist/SKILL.md) skill. For an eval result, ask the same of the trials: did every run do the task, does the gap hold across trials and models, and does the scenario matter.
Back to top