testland/flake-axis-bisection
Locates the condition a known-flaky test actually depends on by holding the test constant and varying one axis at a time (isolation, execution order, worker count, viewport, network latency, repetition depth), recording a pass/fail count per variation, and testing whether the gap between two conditions exceeds sampling noise. Covers choosing the run count N from the failure rate you need to detect, binomial confidence intervals on a measured reproduction rate, a two-proportion comparison rule, what a zero-failure result does and does not prove, and the resource-collision walk (DB row, DB schema, file path, port, env var, module state, inode, cookie jar) used once parallelism is implicated. Use when a specific test is already known to fail intermittently, reading its source has not explained why, and a decision about what to change must rest on measurement rather than on a plausible-sounding guess.
74
93%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
reproduction-rate-statistics.mdreferences/
Reproduction-rate statistics: sizing N, intervals, and comparisons
Deep reference for flake-axis-bisection SKILL.md. Consult for the lookup
tables and derivations behind choosing N (Step 2) and deciding whether two
counts differ by more than sampling noise (Step 5).
Choosing N: the binomial arithmetic
If a test truly fails with probability p on each run, and runs are
independent, the chance that N runs produce zero failures is (1 - p)^N
(the binomial zero-event probability, the same starting point used to derive
the rule of three, Rule of three
(statistics)).
Solving (1 - p)^N = 0.05 gives the N at which you have a 95% chance of
seeing at least one failure:
| True rate p | Chance of zero failures at N=20 | N for a 95% chance of at least one failure |
|---|---|---|
| 10% | 0.90^20 = 12% | 29 |
| 5% | 0.95^20 = 36% | 59 |
| 2% | 0.98^20 = 67% | 149 |
| 1% | 0.99^20 = 82% | 299 |
Read the middle column before committing to N=20. A test that really fails 5% of the time shows a clean 0/20 more than a third of the time. N=20 is a screening depth, adequate to separate a roughly 40% flake from a roughly 5% flake, and not adequate to separate 5% from 10%: at N=20 those two rates predict 1 and 2 failures respectively, and both are routinely observed as 0, 1, 2, or 3.
Confidence interval on a measured rate (Wilson)
k/N is a point estimate of a proportion. Attach a confidence interval to
it. The Wilson interval, recommended "for virtually all combinations of n
and p", is the standard choice (NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook, Confidence
intervals for a
proportion).
Computed 95% Wilson intervals for the counts that come up most often:
| Observed | Point estimate | 95% Wilson interval |
|---|---|---|
| 0/20 | 0% | 0% to 16.1% |
| 1/20 | 5% | 0.9% to 23.6% |
| 2/20 | 10% | 2.8% to 30.1% |
| 4/20 | 20% | 8.1% to 41.6% |
| 10/20 | 50% | 29.9% to 70.1% |
| 0/50 | 0% | 0% to 7.1% |
| 2/50 | 4% | 1.1% to 13.5% |
| 10/50 | 20% | 11.2% to 33.0% |
| 0/100 | 0% | 0% to 3.7% |
| 2/100 | 2% | 0.6% to 7.0% |
| 10/100 | 10% | 5.5% to 17.4% |
The 1/20 and 2/20 rows are the whole warning in two lines. Their intervals overlap across almost their entire width. A sweep that reports "5% baseline, 10% under randomized order" has measured nothing.
Comparing two variations (two-proportion z)
For baseline x1/n1 against a variation x2/n2, the two-proportion test
statistic with a pooled proportion is
z = (p1 - p2) / sqrt(p(1-p)(1/n1 + 1/n2)) where p = (x1+x2)/(n1+n2), and
a two-sided decision compares |z| against the normal table value
z(1-alpha/2) (NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook, Comparing two
proportions).
At alpha = 0.05 that threshold is 1.96. The handbook notes Fisher's exact
test as the alternative when samples are small.
Worked comparisons, all against a 3/20 baseline unless stated:
| Variation result | z | Verdict at 1.96 |
|---|---|---|
| 17/20 (network constrained) | 4.43 | Implicated. Strong. |
| 14/20 versus a 0/20 alone-run | 4.64 | Implicated. Strong. |
| 8/20 (4 workers), versus 2/20 at 1 worker | 2.19 | Implicated. Marginal: re-measure deeper. |
| 6/20 (narrow viewport) | 1.14 | Not distinguishable from noise. |
| 4/20 (animations enabled) | 0.42 | Noise. |
| 2/20 (network constrained) | -0.48 | Noise. |
Look hard at the 6/20 row. That is a doubling of the observed rate, 15% to 30%, and it does not clear the threshold at N=20. Any screening rule phrased as "a relative change above 2x implicates the axis" is a practitioner convention for deciding which axis to re-measure, not a finding. Treat a 2x screening hit as a shortlist entry, re-run that axis and the baseline at higher N, and only then apply the z rule.