Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

messaging-ab-tester(消息传递 ab 测试仪)

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试、用例整理和回归验证。它适合让 Agent 编写单元测试、端到端测试、测试计划或根据失败日志定位问题。使用时需要确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为了通过测试而改坏真实逻辑;涉及浏览器或外部服务时,应区分本地模拟、测试环境和生产环境。

messaging-ab-tester 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 21,023。

总安装 196周安装 8GitHub Stars 630下载 63核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:messaging-ab-tester(消息传递 ab 测试仪)
来源仓库:https://github.com/gooseworks-ai/goose-skills
仓库路径:skills/messaging-ab-tester
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/gooseworks-ai/goose-skills --skill messaging-ab-tester
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/gooseworks-ai/goose-skills --skill messaging-ab-tester

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

用于辅助测试设计、自动化测试和用例整理,适合编写单元测试或端到端测试。适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中的回归验证和问题定位任务。使用时需确认项目测试框架、运行命令和夹具数据,避免为通过测试而改坏逻辑。涉及浏览器或外部服务时应区分本地模拟、测试环境与生产环境。

建议结合日志分析和构建检查确保测试有效性和稳定性。

来源仓库内路径:skills/messaging-ab-tester

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/gooseworks-ai/goose-skills --skill messaging-a…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

messaging-ab-tester 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/gooseworks-ai/goose-skills --skill messaging-ab-tester。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

messaging-ab-tester 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

messaging-ab-tester 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

messaging-ab-tester 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

messaging-ab-tester 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 196 次,近一周安装 8 次,下载 63 次,GitHub 630 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

messaging-ab-tester 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
messaging-ab-tester

消息传递 ab 测试仪 · 本页

196630只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Messaging A/B Tester

Stop debating which message is better — test it. Generate messaging variants, deploy them through real channels, and measure which framing actually resonates with your ICP.

Core principle: At seed/Series A, you don't have enough traffic for website A/B tests. But you do have enough LinkedIn impressions and cold email sends to test messaging angles fast.

When to Use

  • "Which of these value props should we lead with?"
  • "Test our messaging angles and tell me which works"
  • "I can't decide between [message A] and [message B]"
  • "What messaging resonates most with [ICP]?"
  • "Run a messaging test for [product/feature]"

Phase 0: Intake

What to Test

  1. Core value prop — The claim or positioning you want to test (e.g., "We help growth teams run outbound 10x faster")
  2. Test goal — What are you deciding? (Headline for website, cold email angle, LinkedIn content strategy, ad copy direction)
  3. ICP — Who should this resonate with? (Title, company type, stage)
  4. Current messaging — What are you using today? (Baseline to beat)

Test Channel

  1. Where to test:

- LinkedIn organic — Post variants across consecutive days, compare engagement - Cold email — A/B test subject lines or opening hooks via Smartlead - Both — Run in parallel for fastest signal

  1. Sample size available:

- LinkedIn: followers/typical impressions per post - Email: list size available for testing

Constraints

  1. Number of variants — 3-5 recommended (more = slower signal)
  2. Test duration — How long to run? (Default: 1 week for LinkedIn, 3-5 days for email)

Phase 1: Generate Messaging Variants

Create 3-5 variants that test different angles, not just different words. Each variant should represent a distinct strategic bet:

Variant Types

TypeWhat It TestsExample
Outcome-drivenLeading with the result"3x your pipeline in 30 days"
Pain-drivenLeading with the problem"Tired of spending 4 hours a day on manual prospecting?"
Identity-drivenLeading with who they are"Built for growth teams who move fast"
Proof-drivenLeading with evidence"How [Customer] went from 10 to 50 demos/month"
Contrast-drivenLeading with what you're not"Not another CRM. An outbound engine."

Variant Template

For each variant:

VARIANT [N]: [Type — e.g., "Outcome-driven"]

Hypothesis: This framing will resonate because [reasoning tied to ICP psychology]

LinkedIn post version:
---
[Full post copy — 100-200 words, native LinkedIn format]
---

Email subject line version:
[Subject line — max 50 chars]

Email opening hook version:
[First 2 sentences of an email]

Headline version:
[Website headline — max 10 words]

Phase 2: Deploy Tests

Option A: LinkedIn Organic Test

Setup:

  1. Schedule variants as consecutive posts (1 per day, same time of day)
  2. Each post should be similar length and format (control for post structure)
  3. Don't boost any posts — organic only for clean comparison

Measurement (after 48 hours per post):

  • Impressions
  • Reactions (likes, celebrates, etc.)
  • Comments
  • Comment sentiment (positive/negative/neutral)
  • Profile visits (if trackable)
  • DMs received mentioning the post

Option B: Cold Email A/B Test

Setup via your outreach tool (Smartlead, Instantly, Lemlist, or any tool with A/B testing):

  1. Create campaign with all variants as A/B test sequences
  2. Split list evenly across variants (minimum 50 per variant for signal)
  3. Same send time, same sender, same CTA — only the messaging changes

Measurement (after 5 days):

  • Open rate (tests subject line)
  • Reply rate (tests full message resonance)
  • Positive reply rate (tests conversion quality)
  • Click rate (if link included)

Option C: Both (Recommended)

Run LinkedIn and email in parallel. Different channels may show different winners — that's valuable signal about where each message works best.

Phase 2B: Collect Results

After the test has run for the planned duration, gather your results:

How to provide data:

  • Paste metrics — Copy open rates, reply rates, engagement numbers directly into the chat
  • CSV export — Export campaign analytics from your outreach tool and share the file
  • Screenshot — Take a screenshot of your dashboard/analytics and share it
  • Manual input — Just tell the agent the numbers: "Variant A got 45% open rate and 3% reply rate, Variant B got 52% open rate and 5% reply rate"

For LinkedIn tests: Go to your post analytics (click "View analytics" on each post) and share impressions, reactions, comments, and profile visits per post.

For email tests: Export or screenshot your campaign's variant/A-B test results showing sends, opens, and replies per variant.

The agent will normalize whatever format you provide into the scoring framework below.

Phase 3: Analyze Results

Scoring Framework

MetricWeight (LinkedIn)Weight (Email)
Engagement rate30%—
Comment quality30%—
Open rate—30%
Reply rate—40%
Positive reply rate—30%
Impressions20%—
Profile visits / clicks20%—

Statistical Significance Check

For email tests:

  • Minimum sends per variant: 50 (for directional signal), 200+ (for confident decisions)
  • Minimum difference to call a winner: >20% relative difference in primary metric

For LinkedIn tests:

  • Minimum posts per variant: 1 (you're testing with limited data — treat as directional)
  • Minimum impressions: 500 per post to be comparable

Winner Selection

WINNER: Variant [N] — [Type]

Primary metric: [X] (vs average of [Y] across other variants)
Relative improvement: [Z%] over baseline

Why it won:
[1-2 sentences on what this tells us about ICP messaging preferences]

Runner-up: Variant [N]
[1 sentence on when this might work better — different channel, different segment]

Phase 4: Output Format

# Messaging A/B Test Results — [DATE]
Value prop tested: [description]
ICP: [target audience]
Test duration: [dates]

---

## Test Design

| Variant | Type | Hypothesis |
|---------|------|-----------|
| A | [Type] | [Hypothesis] |
| B | [Type] | [Hypothesis] |
| C | [Type] | [Hypothesis] |

---

## Results

### LinkedIn Test

| Variant | Impressions | Reactions | Comments | Engagement Rate | Score |
|---------|------------|-----------|----------|----------------|-------|
| A | [N] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | [weighted] |
| B | [N] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | [weighted] |
| C | [N] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | [weighted] |

### Email Test

| Variant | Sends | Opens | Open Rate | Replies | Reply Rate | Positive | Score |
|---------|-------|-------|-----------|---------|------------|----------|-------|
| A | [N] | [N] | [X%] | [N] | [X%] | [N] | [weighted] |
| B | [N] | [N] | [X%] | [N] | [X%] | [N] | [weighted] |
| C | [N] | [N] | [X%] | [N] | [X%] | [N] | [weighted] |

---

## Winner: Variant [N] — "[Headline]"

**Why it won:** [Analysis — what does this tell us about how our ICP thinks?]

**Recommended deployment:**
- Website headline: "[adapted version]"
- Sales deck opening: "[adapted version]"
- LinkedIn bio: "[adapted version]"
- Cold email default: "[adapted version]"

---

## Variant Details & Copy

### Variant A: [Full copy used in test]
### Variant B: [Full copy used in test]
### Variant C: [Full copy used in test]

---

## What to Test Next

Based on these results, the next messaging test should explore:
1. [Angle suggested by results — e.g., "test more specific proof points since proof-driven won"]
2. [Segment test — e.g., "test winning message against different ICP segment"]

Save to the current working directory or wherever the user prefers.

Cost

ComponentCost
Variant generationFree (LLM reasoning)
LinkedIn postingFree (organic)
Email testingIncluded with your outreach tool's plan
Results analysisFree (LLM reasoning)
TotalFree

Tools Required

None. Pure reasoning for variant generation, test design, and result analysis. The user deploys tests through their own tools:

  • LinkedIn organic — post variants manually or via scheduling tool
  • Cold email — set up A/B tests in whatever outreach tool they use (Smartlead, Instantly, Lemlist, etc.)
  • Results — user provides metrics (screenshots, CSV exports, or manual input) for analysis

Trigger Phrases

  • "Test which messaging angle works best for [ICP]"
  • "Run a messaging A/B test for [value prop]"
  • "Which of these messages should we lead with?"
  • "Help me decide between these positioning options"

平台分布

Codex

36.97%
按下载量换算23

Claude

26.93%
按下载量换算17

Cursor

19.15%
按下载量换算12

Gemini CLI

9.19%
按下载量换算6

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills