Backlog Refinement: Grooming & Prioritising Stories

This story needs more detail before we can estimate it: This phrase clearly links the lack of information to a concrete consequence — the team cannot estimate — and frames the issue constructively rather than as a complaint. It is professional, actionable, and invites the product owner to provide clarification. Option A is informal and vague. Option B sounds dismissive and doesn't specify what would help. Option D implies blame ("someone needs to explain") without being constructive. In refinement sessions, flagging stories that are not "ready" for estimation — using objective criteria like lack of detail — is the team's shared responsibility.

Can we split this into smaller tickets? Story splitting is a core backlog refinement technique — large stories (sometimes called epics) are broken into smaller, independently deliverable user stories that fit within a single sprint. Using "split" and "tickets" is the idiomatic agile vocabulary. Option B correctly identifies the problem but doesn't suggest a solution — the point of refinement is to act on the finding. Option C is vague ("at some point") and defers action. Option D describes the problem without proposing splitting. Asking "can we split?" also invites collaboration and positions the work as a team effort rather than a criticism.

What's the acceptance criteria? Acceptance criteria (AC) are the specific, testable conditions a user story must satisfy to be accepted by the product owner. They are a formal agile concept, distinct from the Definition of Done, and are usually written as "Given / When / Then" or bullet-point conditions. Using the correct term connects the question to a specific deliverable — written AC — that the team can reference during development and QA. Option A is informal and vague. Option B focuses on authorship rather than the story's requirements. Option C asks about testing specifically, which is narrower than acceptance criteria. "What's the acceptance criteria?" is direct, precise, and universally understood in agile teams.

This is a dependency — should we block it? "Dependency" is the precise agile term for a relationship where one piece of work relies on another before it can proceed. Marking a story as "blocked" in the backlog is a formal action — it signals to stakeholders that work cannot begin until the dependency is resolved. This phrase does two things: names the issue correctly (dependency) and prompts a team decision (should we block it?). Option A is informal and slightly adversarial. Option C defers the discussion without naming the dependency. Option D uses the right word but frames it negatively without proposing action. Naming dependencies explicitly in refinement prevents surprises in sprint planning.

I'd reprioritise this to next sprint: "Reprioritise" is the correct agile vocabulary for deliberately changing the order or timing of backlog items. It is an active, ownership-taking phrase — "I'd reprioritise" signals a clear recommendation with a specific outcome (next sprint). Option A is factual but passive and doesn't suggest a concrete action. Option B is informal ("push back") and vague about timing. Option D is dismissive and suggests the story might be forgotten rather than deliberately scheduled. In backlog refinement, reprioritisation decisions should be explicit and time-bound — "next sprint" gives the team and product owner a clear expectation of when the work will be reconsidered.