View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Request for CommentsSpecification by ExampleAcceptance Criteria WorkshopArchitecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | When a story needs clear checkpoints before implementation, it sharpens expectation and scope together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as Acceptance Criteria and a Story Update. | An ADR permanently records an architecture decision with context, trade-offs, and consequence. It creates continuity for later changes because the decision path stays traceable. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 60-90 min pro Feature | 20-40 min pro Story | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 | 3-6 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |