// VERIFY · EXPERIMENTATION
Change the prompt. Prove it's better.
Run any prompt, model or agent config over a versioned dataset, score every output, and compare against baseline with actual statistics: confidence intervals and significance tests, so "it feels better" becomes "it is better, p < 0.05."
THE PROBLEM
Eyeballing three outputs is not an experiment
Most prompt changes ship after someone reads a handful of outputs and nods. Sampling noise reads as improvement, regressions hide in the cases nobody re-ran, and the same argument repeats every review.
// HOW RUNAGAIN SOLVES IT
Pick a dataset, a prompt template and a task model; run every item with N trials to measure non-determinism. Each run item records output, latency, tokens, cost and errors, and then the scorers grade it.
The compare view shows pass rates with 95% Wilson intervals and runs McNemar's paired test over shared items. A change is only labeled improvement or regression when it's unlikely to be sampling noise.
Items whose data changed between runs are excluded by content hash, so an edited dataset can't masquerade as a regression. Changed items show input and both outputs side by side.
The winning config doesn't stay a chart. The same experiment runs in CI with thresholds and --fail-on-regression, so the bar you proved becomes the bar you keep.
Experiment feeds Evaluate: every fork gets a score.
COMMON USE CASES
RELATED SOLUTIONS
Be first to run again.
Book 30 minutes and see the loop on your own agents, or write to tamas@runagain.ai.