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 Three Amigos |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Working Agreements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When story, test, and implementation could drift apart, it brings business perspective, engineering, and quality together early. It prevents a story from being read differently only late in the process. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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 collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3 | 3-10 | 3-6 | 3-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence |
Tagsno overlap | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | TeamCollaborationAgile |