The oft-stated premise that Agile has replaced Waterfall (and "Agentic" replaces Agile) is simply not true. The vast majority of companies that claim to be working in an Agile way are doing hardcore waterfall. If you want an indicator, look at backlog size. Most so-called Agile shops have very large backlogs filled with information from up-front requirements-gathering phase. Often, testing is separated from coding, and coding from deployment. Virtually none of them get feedback as they work and adjust based on that feedback. Hardly anybody takes continuous improvement seriously. All the teams are marching in lockstep using identical processes with no autonomy. The trend is away from a sustainable pace. (996 is a disease that lowers productivity and burns people out.) I could go on. None of this behavior aligns with Agile thinking. Coding has never been the bottleneck, so having an LLM do that doesn't appreciably change things. If anything, "Agentic" moves us in the wrong direction, towards big batches created without user feedback and big up-front requirements gathering (i.e., "spec driven") feeding an opaque development process. That's just an AI-assisted waterfall.

"Quiet Quitting" has been integral to Agile since day one: "Agile processes promote sustainable dev. The…developers…should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely." No overtime.No "110%." No burnout. Just doing a great job w/ zero tolerance for exploitation

Reusability almost always adds unnecessary complexity, so is actively destructive to both maintainability and agility, IME. The characteristic you need is refactorability, not reusability.

It's a huge red flag if every team is following the same process/framework. Self organizing teams get to decide how they work. Every retro moves the team in a unique direction. Even if they start with a standardized process, they won't stay that way for long. That's agile.