View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Specification by ExampleAcceptance Criteria WorkshopRequest for CommentsArchitecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Architecture Architecture Decision Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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 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. | 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 | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 20-40 min pro Story | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Async | Async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |