Sounds quite agile. Set a spring length, time estimate and prioritized the todo list. Then you would get a pulse between developing and reviewing what time is spent on and if you're developing the right things.
That's like when TDD advocates claim credit for the benefits of doing any testing at all, but only acknowledge the costs of doing orthodox TDD (if that). It's dishonest, and makes it harder for anyone to have any kind of meaningful discussion about what does and doesn't work.
I'm not arguing that there's a benefit in having a development / testing / review cycle, but when discussion turns to capital-m Methodologies, it tends to become us-versus-them, more about following the methodology's branding and other trappings to the letter than whether things actually work.
[Edited a bit for tone, and to make it less personal]
I just find pistoriusp to be quite agile in that they see themselves as a team, and that they have a todo list of things to finish in some order (backlog in agile terminology).
Since I am being down voted, there must be people that think it is a bad idea to introduce a fixed sprint length and perform time estimates on todo list items. For the conversation, I want to hear those arguments.
I don't care about Agile Development, proper. I want people to be able to discuss what techniques increase agility (which needs a better word, now) without the Agile people stepping in and derailing everything into being about their personal ideology.
I just think the advocacy tactic of, "You've been unknowingly following my Special Technique all along, and that's responsible for your success...do it right and you'll do even better" should be seen for what it is: taking all of the credit and none of the blame.
And about, "You hate Agile, so you must think waterfall is better"? Don't get me started.