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 |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Agile Acceptance Criteria Workshop |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 15-30 min | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 20-40 min pro Story |
Participantsdifferent | 3 | 3-20 Reviewer | 3-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Acceptance Criteria, Story Update |
Tagsno overlap | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AgileRequirementsRefinementBehavior-Driven Development |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
