u/Pouetpouets

Hey all, Scrum practitioners, I'd love your take on something that's quietly breaking our process.

Context: fullstack dev at a large enterprise. We run fairly standard Scrum: backlog refinement → sprint planning → user stories with acceptance criteria → sprint → review. The Product Owner / Business Analyst layer owns the backlog, and historically nothing entered a sprint until it was refined and pointed.

What changed: we're piloting AI-assisted, spec-driven development (BMAD-style agentic toolkit, with our own internal rules) on a project we're rebuilding: frontend overhaul, UX/UI rework, new features. We went in with a spec doc and a Figma mockup.

The problem: the increment ran way ahead of the backlog. Roughly 70% of the project got built in about a week, with almost no user stories written. Our PO/BA layer isn't on these tools yet, so refinement is now the bottleneck instead of the gate. We effectively have working code before we have stories.

So the Scrum flow is inverted: increment first, backlog and stories... after the fact.

My manager (reasonably) wants a proper trace of what was built stories, acceptance criteria, docs for the support/maintenance load that'll hit in a few years. But that artifact layer doesn't exist yet, and the people who'd write it can't keep up.

Questions for people who've hit this:

1. Does a fixed sprint cadence still make sense when a feature ships faster than you can even schedule refinement? Do you shorten sprints, drop them, move to flow/Kanban?
2. How do you handle the backlog when stories come after the code? Do you reverse-generate stories + acceptance criteria from the shipped increment? Does that still count as a backlog?
3. Where does the PO/BA role move — onto the AI tooling, into validation/acceptance, into guarding the Definition of Done?
4. How do you keep the Definition of Done meaningful (traceability, docs) when build speed outpaces refinement?

Not after AI hype or doom just real experiences from Scrum teams who've actually been through this. What adapted cleanly, what broke?

Thanks.

Hey all, looking for perspective from people who've hit this in a larger org. Quick background: I'm a fullstack dev at a large enterprise. We're rolling out AI-assisted development, and it's breaking our process in a way I didn't expect.

How we used to work (classic agile):

Business need → Business Analyst challenges/refines it → user stories → dev sprint. The BA layer was the gate. Nothing got built until it was specced.

What changed:

We have few specs and we started piloting a spec-driven agentic toolkit (think BMAD-style, but with our own internal rules) on a project we're rebuilding: frontend overhaul, UX/UI rework, new features. We went in with a spec doc and a Figma mockup.

The problem:

The code exploded forward. Roughly 70% of the project got built in about a week. Meanwhile we have almost no user stories written. Our BA team isn't using these tools yet, so they're now *behind dev delivery instead of ahead of it.

So the flow is completely inverted: working code first, specs and stories... eventually(?).

My manager is (reasonably) insisting we keep a proper trace of what was built, for the bugs/support/maintenance that'll surface a few years down the line. But that documentation doesn't exist yet, and the people who'd normally write it can't keep up.

What I'm trying to figure out:

1. How are other companies handling this code-before-specs inversion? Do you reverse-generate stories/docs from the shipped code?
2. Is sprint-based agile even the right frame anymore when a feature ships faster than a refinement meeting can be scheduled?
3. Where does the BA role go, retrain onto the AI tooling, shift to validation/acceptance, or something else?

Not looking for AI hype or doom, just real experiences from teams who've actually gone through this. What worked, what blew up?

Thanks.