Next story?
Create a room.
Free to use, no sign-up, ready in seconds. Bring the whole team.
Rate a story's complexity, uncertainty and effort, and get a Fibonacci estimate with the reasoning and whether to split it.
A few parts that must work together
A detail or two to check
A day or two
5 story points: Medium
A comfortable size for a sprint.
A score of 2.75 out of 5, driven most by effort. A typical story: a few parts that work together, a few days of work.
Estimate it with your teamStory points measure size relative to other stories, not hours. The gaps grow with the numbers, because the bigger a story, the less exact any estimate of it.
A small, safe change: a label, a setting, a typo.
Well understood and done within a day, with little to test.
Familiar work with a question or two to answer on the way.
A typical story: a few parts that work together, a few days of work.
Most of a sprint for one person, or real unknowns: worth a look for a split.
Too much to finish safely in one sprint: split it before you commit to it.
An epic, not a story: break it into smaller stories and estimate those.
The whole method fits on one card per step, so you can check any suggestion by hand.
Complexity, uncertainty and effort, each from 1 to 5. Every rating says what it means, so two people mean the same by a 3.
Their weighted average is a score from 1 to 5, with effort 40%, complexity 35% and uncertainty 25%.
The score is spread evenly over the seven cards from 1 to 21 and rounded to the nearest: a score of 3 is 5 points.
From 8 points it suggests a split, and with uncertainty at 4 or 5 a short spike first.
A unit for the size of a piece of work compared with other pieces, taking in how much there is to do, how hard it is and how much is unknown. A 2 is about twice a 1; neither is a number of hours.
You rate complexity, uncertainty and effort from 1 to 5. It takes their weighted average (effort 40%, complexity 35%, uncertainty 25%), spreads the scores from 1 to 5 evenly over the cards 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 21, and picks the nearest.
Because the bigger a story, the less exactly anyone can size it. The growing gaps between 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 21 stop a team arguing over 9 or 10, when the honest answer is "about 8, maybe 13".
No. It is a starting point for one person, handy before refinement or to check a hunch. In planning poker the whole team votes in secret, and the gaps between their votes bring out what one person would miss.
When it comes out at 13 or more, and often at 8. A story should fit comfortably in a sprint; split it by workflow step, by user role or by the simple case first, so each piece is still worth something on its own.
There is no fixed rate, and that is the point: each team settles its own scale by comparing stories. Over a few sprints, the points a team finishes per sprint (its velocity) tells it how much to plan.
Pick a small story everyone understands and call it a 2 or a 3. Size every other story against it, and against the ones already sized, rather than in days. After two or three sprints the numbers settle.
It is free, with no sign-up. It runs in your browser: the ratings are not sent anywhere, and they are gone when you leave the page.