Backlog refinement: how to run sessions that actually improve sprint planning

A diverse agile team gathered around a kanban board collaborating on organizing and prioritizing sticky notes, with some members pointing at items and others taking notesA diverse agile team gathered around a kanban board collaborating on organizing and prioritizing sticky notes, with some members pointing at items and others taking notes Most teams treat backlog refinement like a chore. The product owner reads through a list of tickets while everyone else zones out. Then sprint planning arrives and the team spends three hours debating what half the stories even mean. It doesn't have to work that way. Good refinement is what makes sprint planning fast and predictable. Teams that get it right report sprint planning dropping from hours to under 30 minutes, with mid-sprint clarification requests falling by 70%.

What backlog refinement actually is

Backlog refinement (formerly called "backlog grooming" before the Scrum Guide dropped that term in 2013) is the ongoing process of reviewing and estimating product backlog items so they're ready when sprint planning arrives. The Scrum Guide recommends teams spend about 10% of sprint capacity on refinement. For a two-week sprint, that's roughly 4–8 hours split across one or two sessions. Refinement is not sprint planning. Sprint planning answers "what are we committing to this sprint?" Refinement answers "do we understand these stories well enough to commit to them?"

Who should be in the room

Keep it to 5–9 people. The core group:
  • Product owner provides business context, answers "why" questions, and makes prioritization calls
  • Development team provides technical perspective, estimates effort, and flags risks
  • Scrum master facilitates, keeps things timeboxed, and makes sure quieter voices get heard
Invite subject matter experts or designers for specific stories, but don't drag them through the whole session.

How to structure a refinement session

A solid refinement session runs 45–60 minutes mid-sprint. Here's a structure that works:
Review follow-ups from last session (5 min)
Check that action items got done. Did someone investigate that API limitation? Did the designer finalize those wireframes? If dependencies aren't resolved, those stories aren't ready.
Walk through new or updated stories (15–20 min)
The product owner presents 3–5 high-priority items. For each story, clarify the business goal, walk through acceptance criteria, and answer questions. Stay focused on what and why. Save how for sprint planning.
Estimate with planning poker (15 min)
Use planning poker to estimate the refined stories. Simultaneous reveal prevents anchoring bias so the loudest voice doesn't set the number. Discuss outliers and re-vote until you reach consensus. If you can't converge, the story probably needs more refinement.
Flag risks and blockers (5 min)
Quick round-table: are there dependencies, unknowns, or technical spikes needed? Assign owners for anything that needs investigation before next session.
Mark stories as ready (5 min)
Stories that meet your Definition of Ready get marked for sprint planning. Anything that still has open questions stays in the backlog for next session.
A visual representation of a backlog board with items flowing from a rough unrefined state on the left to polished well-defined cards on the right, showing a gradient of clarityA visual representation of a backlog board with items flowing from a rough unrefined state on the left to polished well-defined cards on the right, showing a gradient of clarity

The Definition of Ready

Just like you have a Definition of Done for completed work, a Definition of Ready sets the bar for stories entering a sprint. A story is ready when:

It has a clear user story with business value stated

Acceptance criteria are defined (aim for 1–3, never more than 5)

The team has estimated it using planning poker

Dependencies are identified and resolved (or have a plan)

No open questions remain and the team understands the requirements

It fits within a single sprint

Stories that don't meet these criteria shouldn't enter sprint planning. Pulling unrefined work into a sprint is how you end up with blocked developers and missed commitments.

Why estimation belongs in refinement, not sprint planning

This is a common mistake: teams skip estimation during refinement and try to do it all during sprint planning. The result is a three-hour planning marathon where half the time is spent debating story sizes instead of building a sprint plan. When estimation happens in refinement through planning poker, sprint planning becomes a capacity exercise. You already know the sizes, so you're just selecting which stories fit. Teams that separate estimation from planning consistently report planning sessions finishing in under an hour. Planning poker works well in refinement because the discussion it generates is itself a refinement activity. When one developer estimates a 3 and another estimates a 13, the conversation that follows ("I assumed we'd use the existing API" vs. "that API doesn't support this use case") surfaces exactly the kind of unknowns you want to catch before sprint planning. For a deeper look at estimation scales, check out our guide on planning poker story points.

Common mistakes that kill refinement sessions

The product owner works alone. Refinement isn't a solo activity where the PO prepares perfect stories in isolation. The whole point is collaborative understanding. When the PO refines alone, you lose technical perspective and team buy-in. Too many people in the room. Inviting 12–15 people turns refinement into a committee meeting. Conversations stall, engagement drops, and you'll be lucky to get through three stories in an hour. Refining too far ahead. Detailing stories for six months from now is waste. Priorities shift and you'll re-refine most of it anyway. Stick to the next 2–3 sprints. Skipping pre-work. When the product owner shows up without having reviewed the items beforehand, the session becomes a brainstorming meeting instead of a refinement one. The PO should come prepared with drafted stories and initial acceptance criteria. Breaking stories by technical layer. "Build the database schema," "Create the API," "Build the UI" are not useful stories because none deliver value on their own. Write vertical slices that deliver end-to-end user value instead. A team of professionals in a meeting room with one person presenting at a whiteboard covered in user story cards while others engage in discussion, with a planning poker app visible on a laptop screenA team of professionals in a meeting room with one person presenting at a whiteboard covered in user story cards while others engage in discussion, with a planning poker app visible on a laptop screen

AI-assisted refinement in 2026

AI tools are starting to change how teams approach refinement. Early adopters are seeing real results: pilot programs show AI expanding 40–45% of vague tickets into well-structured stories automatically, and cutting overall backlog grooming time in half. Where it's working best right now: Story quality checks. AI scans your backlog and flags stories missing acceptance criteria, identifies vague language, and suggests improvements based on INVEST criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable). Draft story generation. Tools take a high-level feature description and generate draft user stories with acceptance criteria. The PO still reviews and refines them, but the starting point is better than a blank ticket. Predictive estimation. By analyzing historical data (past story sizes, actual completion times, team velocity), AI can suggest preliminary estimates before the team plays planning poker. This gives teams a baseline to discuss rather than starting from zero. Backlog hygiene. AI identifies duplicate stories, flags items that haven't been touched in months, and suggests stories to archive. One pilot found it auto-archived 25% of low-value items that were just creating noise.

Making it work for remote teams

Distributed teams need to be more deliberate about refinement. A few things that help:
  • Async pre-work: Share stories in advance and let people comment before the live session. The synchronous meeting should be for discussion, not reading.
  • Digital planning poker: Tools like Kollabe let remote teams estimate simultaneously without the awkwardness of unmuting to shout numbers. Anonymous voting also removes seniority bias.
  • Recorded decisions: Document what was decided and why, not just what was discussed. Remote teams can't rely on "everyone was there" because time zones mean they probably weren't.

Measuring refinement effectiveness

You don't need a dashboard. Watch for these signals:
Healthy refinementBroken refinement
Sprint planning finishes in under an hourSprint planning drags past two hours
Team hits 80%+ of sprint commitmentsFrequent missed commitments and carryover
Few mid-sprint clarification requestsDevelopers blocked waiting for answers
Stories rarely change scope once in sprintScope creep and re-estimation mid-sprint
Team feels confident at sprint startTeam feels uncertain about what they're building
If you're seeing the right column more than the left, your refinement process needs attention, not your sprint planning process.

Getting started

If your team doesn't have a structured refinement practice, start simple:
  1. Schedule a recurring 60-minute session mid-sprint
  2. Have the product owner prepare 5–7 stories before each session
  3. Use planning poker to estimate, because it forces the discussion that makes stories better
  4. Agree on a Definition of Ready and hold to it
  5. Track whether sprint planning gets shorter over the next few sprints
Refinement isn't glamorous, but it's the ceremony that makes every other ceremony work. Get it right and you'll feel the difference in every sprint planning session after.

They're the same thing. The Scrum Guide replaced "grooming" with "refinement" in 2013 because of the negative connotations associated with the word "grooming." Both terms are still used in practice, but "refinement" is the current standard.

Most teams run one or two sessions per sprint. For a two-week sprint, a single 60-minute session mid-sprint works well. If your backlog changes rapidly or you have a large team, consider two shorter sessions instead.

The core team (product owner, developers, Scrum master) should attend. Keep it to 5–9 people for productive discussion. Invite specialists or stakeholders only for the specific stories that need their input.

Partially. Async pre-work like reading stories, adding comments, and flagging questions works well. But the live discussion and estimation benefit from real-time interaction. A hybrid approach (async prep + short synchronous session) tends to work best for distributed teams.
Last Updated on 09/02/2026