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 ExampleRequest for CommentsAcceptance Criteria WorkshopArchitecture Decision Record
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |  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. | 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 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 | 60-90 min pro Feature | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 20-40 min pro Story | 15-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 | 1-3 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update | ADR File, Decision Log, Rationale |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development | ArchitectureRationaleDocumentationGovernance |