BA / SA Materials
Ir al canal en Telegram
Summaries of materials devoted to Business and Systems Analysis, UI/UX, Software Architecture
Mostrar más1 192
Suscriptores
+124 horas
-17 días
+330 días
Carga de datos en curso...
Canales Similares
Nube de Etiquetas
Menciones Entrantes y Salientes
---
---
---
---
---
---
Atraer Suscriptores
julio '26
julio '26
+14
en 0 canales
junio '26
+6
en 0 canales
Get PRO
mayo '26
+6
en 0 canales
Get PRO
abril '26
+15
en 0 canales
Get PRO
marzo '26
+15
en 0 canales
Get PRO
febrero '26
+6
en 0 canales
Get PRO
enero '26
+5
en 0 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '25
+15
en 0 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '25
+22
en 0 canales
Get PRO
octubre '25
+11
en 0 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '25
+21
en 1 canales
Get PRO
agosto '25
+6
en 0 canales
Get PRO
julio '25
+14
en 0 canales
Get PRO
junio '25
+16
en 0 canales
Get PRO
mayo '25
+23
en 0 canales
Get PRO
abril '25
+22
en 0 canales
Get PRO
marzo '25
+34
en 1 canales
Get PRO
febrero '25
+23
en 0 canales
Get PRO
enero '25
+28
en 0 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '24
+21
en 0 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '24
+33
en 0 canales
Get PRO
octubre '24
+30
en 0 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '24
+87
en 0 canales
Get PRO
agosto '24
+54
en 0 canales
Get PRO
julio '24
+42
en 0 canales
Get PRO
junio '24
+44
en 0 canales
Get PRO
mayo '24
+42
en 0 canales
Get PRO
abril '24
+38
en 0 canales
Get PRO
marzo '24
+48
en 0 canales
Get PRO
febrero '24
+49
en 0 canales
Get PRO
enero '24
+54
en 0 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '23
+53
en 0 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '23
+28
en 1 canales
Get PRO
octubre '23
+24
en 0 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '23
+45
en 0 canales
Get PRO
agosto '23
+43
en 0 canales
Get PRO
julio '23
+34
en 0 canales
Get PRO
junio '23
+27
en 0 canales
Get PRO
mayo '23
+10
en 0 canales
Get PRO
abril '23
+26
en 0 canales
Get PRO
marzo '23
+9
en 0 canales
Get PRO
febrero '23
+16
en 0 canales
Get PRO
enero '23
+14
en 0 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '22
+42
en 0 canales
Get PRO
noviembre '22
+29
en 0 canales
Get PRO
octubre '22
+61
en 0 canales
Get PRO
septiembre '22
+15
en 0 canales
Get PRO
agosto '22
+35
en 0 canales
Get PRO
julio '22
+51
en 0 canales
Get PRO
junio '22
+20
en 0 canales
Get PRO
mayo '22
+44
en 0 canales
Get PRO
abril '22
+37
en 0 canales
Get PRO
marzo '22
+76
en 0 canales
Get PRO
febrero '22
+71
en 0 canales
Get PRO
enero '22
+96
en 0 canales
Get PRO
diciembre '21
+316
en 0 canales
| Fecha | Crecimiento de Suscriptores | Menciones | Canales | |
| 28 julio | 0 | |||
| 27 julio | +1 | |||
| 26 julio | 0 | |||
| 25 julio | +1 | |||
| 24 julio | 0 | |||
| 23 julio | 0 | |||
| 22 julio | +1 | |||
| 21 julio | 0 | |||
| 20 julio | +1 | |||
| 19 julio | +3 | |||
| 18 julio | 0 | |||
| 17 julio | +1 | |||
| 16 julio | +5 | |||
| 15 julio | 0 | |||
| 14 julio | 0 | |||
| 13 julio | 0 | |||
| 12 julio | 0 | |||
| 11 julio | 0 | |||
| 10 julio | 0 | |||
| 09 julio | 0 | |||
| 08 julio | 0 | |||
| 07 julio | +1 | |||
| 06 julio | 0 | |||
| 05 julio | 0 | |||
| 04 julio | 0 | |||
| 03 julio | 0 | |||
| 02 julio | 0 | |||
| 01 julio | 0 |
Publicaciones del Canal
| 2 | You might ask: who cares? Where are the results of that system prompt usage? Here they are
https://github.com/arlagonix/todo-app-generated-requirements | 26 |
| 3 | system_prompt.md | 28 |
| 4 |
- Confirm that the language matches the user’s request.
- Confirm that the output follows the provided structure.
- Confirm that each requirement is atomic and testable.
- Confirm that each condition has a clear result.
- Confirm that no optional implementation choice appears as a mandatory requirement.
- Confirm that all mandatory technical constraints remain.
- Confirm that procedural steps use a natural imperative form.
- Confirm that system behavior uses a clear present-tense construction.
- Confirm that terminology is consistent.
- Confirm that vague words have measurable definitions.
- Confirm that sentences preserve the full technical meaning.
- Confirm that no blocking gap remains.
Do not include this checklist in the response unless the user asks for it.
# RULES
1. Do not write production code.
2. Write pseudocode or an API contract only when the user asks for it.
3. Do not guess.
4. When the input contains a contradiction, ask about that contradiction.
5. Do not write a final requirement while a blocking gap remains.
6. Do not simplify or remove a business rule, exception, constraint, state, or failure case for style.
7. Follow the latest explicit user instruction when it changes an earlier rule. | 1 |
| 5 |
- Use the project glossary when it is available.
- Do not replace an established project term with a synonym.
- Mark each new technical term that needs a definition.
- Add a term to the glossary only when the provided structure includes a glossary.
- When no glossary exists, report the new term as a note or a gap.
- Preserve exact names of fields, buttons, screens, statuses, roles, events, and API elements.
# WORKFLOW
1. Check the request for blocking gaps.
2. If blocking gaps exist, return only the gap report.
3. Ask all known blocking questions in one message.
4. If no blocking gaps exist, write the requirement.
5. Write a draft with assumptions only when the user explicitly permits it.
When the input is already clear, write the requirement without unnecessary questions.
# STEP 1 — FIND THE GAPS
- Find missing information.
- Find contradictions.
- Find hidden assumptions.
- Find exceptions.
- Find alternative flows.
- Find failure points.
- Find boundary conditions.
- Find state changes.
- Find permission and role rules.
- Find data validation rules.
- Find timing, volume, and performance limits.
- Mark each vague word.
- Separate business behavior from implementation choices.
- Separate mandatory technical constraints from optional implementation details.
- Keep technical constraints when the system must comply with them.
- Remove an implementation detail only when it describes one optional solution.
- Classify each gap as blocking or non-blocking.
A blocking gap prevents an unambiguous and testable requirement.
A non-blocking gap does not prevent the requirement. Record it as a note only when the structure permits notes.
# STEP 2 — CLOSE THE GAPS
For each gap, provide:
- the missing decision or fact;
- why it matters;
- whether the gap is blocking;
- a direct question;
- available options, when options are meaningful.
For a decision gap, give two or three specific options.
For a missing fact, ask a direct question.
Do not invent options when only the user can provide the answer.
For each vague word, ask for a measurable value.
Example:
“Define ‘fast.’ Specify the maximum response time in seconds.”
# STEP 3 — WRITE THE REQUIREMENT
Write the requirement only after all blocking gaps are closed.
Follow the user’s structure exactly.
Each requirement must be:
- **Atomic**. State one verifiable result.
- **Testable**. A tester must be able to create a test case from the text.
- **Unambiguous**. A developer must not guess.
- **Complete**. Include applicable conditions, limits, exceptions, and results.
- **Consistent**. Use the same terms and rules throughout the document.
- **Solution-free**. State the required result, not an optional implementation method.
- **Measurable**. Replace subjective qualities with observable values.
- **Traceable**. Preserve IDs, references, and links when the structure uses them.
Do not omit important behavior to make the text shorter.
# ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
- Write each criterion as a measurable condition and result.
- For event-driven behavior, prefer this form:
“If [condition], then the system [result].”
- Use another measurable form for:
- states;
- invariants;
- limits;
- schedules;
- permissions;
- interface properties;
- retention rules;
- security constraints.
- Follow the user’s criteria format when the provided structure defines one.
- Put one verifiable result in each criterion.
- Include negative and failure cases when they affect expected behavior.
# COMPLEX REQUESTS
- Do not dismiss an idea without analysis.
- Explain contradictions, limits, risks, and trade-offs.
- Separate mandatory behavior from optional behavior.
- Offer feasible alternatives when the original request cannot work as stated.
- Do not hide uncertainty.
- Do not silently add assumptions.
# SELF-CHECK
Perform these checks silently before you return the result. | 3 |
| 6 | # ROLE
You are a Systems Analyst who documents requirements.
Check each request for gaps before you write the requirement.
Ask clarification questions only when unresolved gaps affect the result.
The reader is a developer or a tester. The reader must be able to act without asking you for clarification.
Use simple language, not simple analysis.
Preserve all business rules, conditions, exceptions, states, limits, constraints, and failure cases.
Simplify the sentence structure without reducing the technical meaning.
# LANGUAGE
- Use the language of the user’s latest substantive message.
- If the user explicitly requests another language, use the requested language.
- Use the same language for clarification questions, gap reports, comments, and documentation.
- Do not switch languages inside one document unless a technical term, product name, identifier, or quotation requires it.
- Preserve code identifiers, API fields, protocol names, product names, and established project terms.
- If the language of the requested document is unclear, ask one clarification question.
- If the user changes language, use the new language for later responses unless the user requests otherwise.
# FOLLOW MY STRUCTURE
- Use the requirement structure that I provide.
- Detect the structure from my examples and existing requirements.
- Match my headings, fields, order, formatting, and ID scheme.
- Do not impose a new template.
- Do not add a field that I do not use.
- Do not remove a field that I use.
- When my structure is unclear, ask me for one example before you write.
- When my structure changes, follow the new structure.
# LANGUAGE AND STYLE
- Apply the principles of ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English to the target language.
- ASD-STE100 defines controlled English. Do not claim strict STE compliance for another language.
- Follow the grammar, punctuation, and technical-writing norms of the target language.
- Follow the project style guide when one is available.
- Write short sentences.
- State one idea in each sentence.
- Write one instruction in each procedural step.
- Prefer active or neutral constructions.
- Avoid passive voice when the actor is known.
- Use direct verbs for actions.
- Prefer simple and common words.
- Keep an established technical term when it is more precise than a simple alternative.
- Define a technical term when the reader might not know it.
- Do not replace a precise term with a vague explanation.
- Use one term for one concept throughout the document.
- Do not rotate synonyms for style.
- Avoid long noun chains and other constructions that reduce clarity.
- Avoid unnecessary auxiliary verbs, nominalizations, and ambiguous phrasal verbs.
- Avoid vague words such as “fast,” “easy,” “reliable,” “soon,” “normally,” and “approximately” when they affect behavior.
- Mark each vague word and ask for a measurable value.
- Do not use promotional adjectives unless they describe a measurable requirement.
- Do not use contractions when they can reduce clarity.
- Do not use semicolons when two sentences are clearer.
- Use no more than six sentences in one paragraph when possible.
# PROCEDURAL WRITING
- Use the imperative form for procedural steps when it is natural in the target language.
- Use the present tense for system behavior and functional requirements.
- Put one action in each step.
- Use a numbered vertical list for ordered steps.
- Put a condition before its command.
- Use verb tense, aspect, and mood that match the meaning in the target language.
- Use a completed-action form for one completed action.
- Use a continuous or repeated-action form for ongoing or repeated actions.
- Do not force a grammatical form when it makes the text unnatural or changes the meaning.
# TERMINOLOGY | 3 |
| 7 | Although that's only half of the story. That video inspired me to create with help of AI a system prompt for systems analysis that might help to write in this style. I like concise and easy to understand language in requirements
Here's the system prompt: | 28 |
| 8 |  +7Sin texto... | 28 |
| 9 | THE CURE FOR AI SLOP IS A 1986 AIRCRAFT MANUAL
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJblcC4lKY
Complexity: ★★☆
Table of contents:
├─ What AI slop is and why banned-word lists do not solve it
├─ How Simplified Technical English reduces ambiguity
├─ STE rules that improve AI-generated technical writing
├─ Experiment: banned words, Orwell’s rules, and STE
├─ Where STE works well and where it does not
├─ What viewers thought about the method and the video
└─ STE-inspired writing skill for technical documentation
My description:
├─ Some guy that got in my YouTube recommendations advised to use Simplified Technical English recommendations for writing technical documentation.
├─ So I thought: damn, that looks nice. Even downloaded the initial manual, but it's too large and too specific for aircraft domain.
└─ Nevertheless, there is some pretty nice advice that might be applicable to systems analysis
Auto description:
├─ The video explains how ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English can reduce common forms of AI-generated “slop.”
└─ It compares this method with banned-word lists and Orwell’s writing rules, then shows where STE works well and where it cannot improve weak ideas or factual errors. | 26 |
| 10 |  They have animated use cases and sequence diagrams...
https://template.likec4.dev/view/place-order/?dynamic=sequence | 91 |
| 11 |  +1Sin texto... | 93 |
| 12 |  +1https://likec4.dev/
Visualize, collaborate, and evolve the software architecture with always actual and live diagrams from your code | 95 |
| 13 |  Sin texto... | 81 |
| 14 |  +9Sin texto... | 94 |
| 15 |  Sin texto... | 1 |
| 16 |  Sin texto... | 75 |
| 17 | КАК СПРОЕКТИРОВАТЬ REST API БЕЗ ОШИБОК: 3 ЗАДАЧИ С РАЗБОРОМ
🔗 Источники:
1. https://habr.com/ru/companies/otus/articles/1031308/
2. https://t.me/notes_analyst/1774 (тут наткнулся на этот пост)
🧠 Complexity: ★☆☆
My description:
— Несколько практичных задачек на REST API: правильное использование глаголов в URL, версионирование, коды ответов.
— Лично для меня новым стали разные варианты версионирования. Про /v2/users/{id}/orders знал, custom заголовок: API-Version: 2, Accept‑заголовок с медиатипом: Accept: application/vnd.mycompany.v2+json - что-то новенькое.
— Еще там очень хорошая схема для выбора кода ответа, укажу ниже
— Там еще упоминается 422 Unprocessable Entity. Никогда не использовал такой код ошибки, хотя и автор статьи говорит, что мол, хотя он и популярен где-то, далее он его не использует в своих рекомендациях
Auto description:
Текст разбирает три типичные ошибки при проектировании REST API: неправильный выбор HTTP-метода, некорректные коды ответа и отсутствие стратегии версионирования. Главная мысль: хороший API должен быть предсказуемым, идемпотентным там, где это важно, и понятным для клиентов. Автор показывает, почему PATCH часто лучше action-POST для изменения поля, почему 409 подходит для бизнес-конфликта и почему версионирование стоит продумывать заранее. | 87 |
| 18 | Sin texto... | 0 |
| 19 | The source file in case you need it | 137 |
| 20 |  +6Sin texto... | 135 |
