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 Working Agreements |  Agile Specification by Example |  Agile Three Amigos |  Agile Planning Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When collaboration needs more than implicit expectations, it lays out shared ground rules openly. It creates reliability for conduct, availability, and decision paths. | 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 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 estimates within the team diverge too much, it puts differing expectations on a common test bench. It separates rough complexity from unspoken assumptions. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 60-90 min pro Feature | 15-30 min | 2-5 min je Item |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 3-6 | 3 | 3-9 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Working Agreements, Team Norms, Review Cadence | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Clarified Story, Test Examples, Open Questions | Relative Estimates, Assumption Notes, Split Candidates |
Tagsno overlap | TeamCollaborationAgile | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | CollaborationBehavior-Driven DevelopmentQualityRefinement | EstimationAgileRelative sizingTeam |