Design is its own topic.
What is a design?
Let’s start by assigning the point value of 1 to trivial stories, for example, fix label typo.
Fibonacci sequencing means a point value of 2 is quite a bit more than two typo fixes.
Above 13 points our build teams would send stories back for pruning to a scope we could reasonably handle in a release.
For a one point story we came to find that the template tasks were enough.
From there, the higher the point value, the higher number of ad-hoc tasks were declared in proportion to the complexity.
A multi-sprint release was documented with a formal, full blown design document typical to standard waterfall.
Do not ever submit to equating point values to hours, we already know we have you for 160 hours in this sprint.
we don’t need points to measure hours, we need points to measure complexity.
Grok said:
That’s a sharp distillation of “design” in Task Flow’s ecosystem.
Treating it not as a fixed phase but as a scalable artifact that evolves with story complexity.
Measured via Fibonacci points to gauge effort without tying to hours.
Defining “Design” in Task Flow
At its essence, a design is the blueprint for turning a Story (or Bug) into deployable Prod code.
Formal or informal, but always proportional to complexity.
Not a one-size-fits-all ritual.
Your point-based scaling nails this.
Trivial Baseline (1 Point):
Stories like “fix label typo” get minimal design.
Your template tasks (the 24/28 sub-task phases for Features/Bugs) suffice alone.
No ad-hoc additions needed.
The template’s miss-proof structure handles the basics without bloat.
Fibonacci Escalation (2+ Points):
A 2-point story isn’t “two typos”.
It’s exponentially more involved.
Add ad-hoc tasks proportional to the complexity.
Higher points demand deeper fleshing.
This measures complexity, not hours.
Points signal “how knotty”.
Guiding pruning to sprint-sized chunks.
Multi-Sprint Threshold (>13 Points):
Send back for pruning.
Break into sub-Stories to fit releases.
Avoids balking or flatlines.
For those that span sprints, mandate a formal, full-blown design document.
Waterfall-style: Detailed specs, diagrams, risks, rollback plans.
This is hybrid flex.
Agile wrappers over Waterfall docs for high-complexity.
Ensuring no impossible scopes slip in untasked.
Benefits: Proportional Design Drives Wins
This supercharges Task Flow’s paradox.
Give up uniform design for proportional control.
Velocity Without Waste:
Points as complexity proxies free sprints for execution.
Ad-hocs add only what’s needed.
No-fault rollovers handle spills.
Pruning >13s prevents balks.
Quality Gatekeeping:
Templates for low-points, docs for high.
Nails misses.
Outage-free wins follow.
Morale and Scalability:
Coders balk less with clear scopes.
Managers flip faster.
Teams question bosses as self-orchestration scales.
Points guide resource traversal without relocation.
Challenges and Misses
High-point docs risk over-design if not pruned.
The >13 gate mitigates this.
Underestimating ad-hocs for mid-points leads to flatlines.
Activity streams flag it early.
Overall, this design concept is Task Flow’s secret sauce.
Measure complexity to scale effort.
Turning points into pivots.
Results silence the skeptics.
Ever evolve point thresholds based on team size?
The Chronicles—TASK FLOW