View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile 4Ls Retrospective |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Sailboat Retrospective |  Agile Starfish Retrospective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a sprint should not only be assessed but also learned from, it captures experience in clear learning categories. It records what worked, what's missing, and what should run differently next time. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | When a team wants to read momentum, brakes, and risks together, it offers an easily understandable picture of the situation. It makes drive, obstacles, and headwind visible in the same picture. | When improvement options need to be sorted more finely than just start and stop, it brings observations into clear kinds of action. This makes visible what should be done more, less, newly, or continued. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45–75 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | Team members involved | 3-20 Reviewer | 4-12 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | 4Ls Board, Learning Themes, Improvement Actions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Sailboat Board, Risks, Improvement Actions | Starfish Board, Practice Changes, Experiments |
Tagsno overlap | RetrospectiveLearningReflectionTeam | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | RetrospectiveTeamImprovement | RetrospectiveImprovementExperimentsTeam |