Ronnie Phelps wrote:So Agile Methodologies are based on what is done and not how it is done. Correct?
In a sense, perhaps. In general: the primary goal of an agile method is to be able to deliver high-quality software every few weeks or so ("Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software"). The short increments allow feedback (from the customer and from the data gathered around the reality of trying to deliver software every two weeks) and thus adaptation. That's the core; I think what makes the agile premise viable is the principles and values behind it.
There are about a half-dozen "major" agile methods, and they only have the values and principles in common. Actually I'd boil it down to three of any real relevance: Scrum, XP, and "we're kind of agile, I guess, and we do some of these things that Scrum or XP do." Some like Scrum are simply a "planning and organizational framework," to put it loosely.
XP, on the other hand, sits atop a similar framework, but also defines a number of fairly prescriptive elements, such as TDD and continuous integration, that a team should employ. In that sense, it does define some of "how it is done." Scrum does too, to a lesser extent. Maybe "agile" is more about what is done and the specific methodologies (XP, Scrum) are more about what that boils down to, i.e. how it's done.