What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Add a Working Team Invite System to a SaaS App, Flows created 9 implementation stages and 45 checks.
You asked for: Implement a complete, working invite system with backend logic, database support, UI, validation, and acceptance flow that actually updates membership records.. Flows generated 9 stages because the application requires Only authorized users such as workspace owners or admins can send invites; Invites must be tied to a specific workspace or team; Each invite must store invitee email, inviter, role, status, token, and expiration. Each stage tells your AI builder what to do, tests whether it actually worked, and gives a repair instruction when it fails. These checks are designed to catch: Building only a modal or form without any backend invite persistence; Creating invite links that are not validated server-side; Marking invites as accepted in the UI without creating membership records.
Example failure
The form reported success, but no database record was created.
What Flows does
Flows detects the failure, generates a repair instruction, reruns the test, and stores the passing evidence.
Stages — Plan → Build → Test → Fix → Prove → Ship
9 stages · 45 checks · progressive disclosure — open a stage for details
Copy to external builder
Copies a prompt for Claude/Cursor/etc. Records prompt_copied only — not execution, commits, or checks.
Execute through Oort
Requires Sign in with Oort + a provider connection (BYOK). Keys stay on Oort. A model name in the dropdown is not the same as a live connection.
Next
Check off: The builder identifies the existing user model
Add a proof note on each check — a checkbox alone is weak proof.
Probes & advanced tools are under “More verification tools”. Experience level: Settings.
Project (saved with proof)
Project binding: Unbound — complete project binding before trusting this run · missing repositoryUrl, repositoryStartCommit, environment, stack
More verification tools (probes, timeline, adapters)Show
App persistence (create → read → assert token)
Body template: {"probe":"{{token}}","title":"flows-probe-{{token}}"}. Needs CORS-readable public create/list endpoints (or inconclusive). Badge only when create→read→refresh finds the token (detects false success).
Two-account authorization (User B cannot see/change User A)
Authorization evidence source: Cross-account ownership test (trust level 5/6). These are not equivalent. Unauthenticated probe alone is weaker (source: unauthenticated API probe). Tokens stay in this browser session only — not uploaded to Flows servers.
Generated edge-case tests (review / approve)
- api_probe Submitting the form empty is rejected with a clear error
- api_probe Each required field can be omitted and fails validation
- api_probe Malformed email is rejected
- api_probe Malformed phone is rejected when phone is collected
- api_probe Duplicate submission does not create two records
- api_probe Double-click submit creates only one record
- false_success_probe Failed request does not show success
- browser_automation Refresh during submission does not leave corrupt state
- api_probe Oversized input is rejected
- api_probe Unsafe strings do not execute or break storage
- api_probe Logged-out users cannot open protected pages
- api_probe Protected API rejects requests without credentials
- api_probe Expired session cannot mutate data
- browser_automation Logout in one tab invalidates mutations from another
- cross_account_probe User B cannot see or change User A’s data
- cross_account_probe Participant cannot call coach/admin endpoints
Generated from this route’s signals — you approve; you do not invent security tests.
Content probe (GET body contains text)
In-product content probe reads response text when CORS allows — not full DOM/click automation. Playwright script is optional and external.
Proof strength
thin · 0/100
Heuristic from notes + probes + gates — not a production certification.
Verification adapters
- ● Deploy URL probe · idle
- ● API path probe · idle
- ● Authz probe (unauth → 401/403) · idle
- ● Browser persistence · idle
- ● App persistence (create→read) · idle
- ● Content / body text probe · idle
- ○ In-product Playwright DOM · not embedded (download external script)
Filled circles = available here. Empty = not shipped. Probes are not a production audit. Adapter docs
Step 1 of 9
Not startedAudit the current auth and workspace model
Make the AI inspect the existing app structure before changing anything so the invite system fits the current data model and authorization rules.
If your app uses organizations, teams, accounts, or tenants instead of workspaces, tell the builder to map the feature to that exact model.
Flows keeps plan, checks, failures, and next steps connected
Your AI tool writes or changes the code
Repository grounds the plan only after inspect
Checks always carry a validation tier
How this plan was created
Plan from project details
Flows creates steps using the goal, requirements, stack, platform, and details you provide.
- Project description
- Selected template / route
- User-entered stack
- Constraints and notes
- Add a Working Team Invite System to a SaaS App
No repository inspection implied. Connect and inspect a codebase to ground steps in real files.
Codebase access
Checking GitHub…
Or paste a repository URL manually
Use these instructions in Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Emergent, or another builder.
Analyze this SaaS app and map the current auth and team structure. Identify the user table or model, workspace or organization table, membership table, role system, and any existing settings or members page. Based on the current architecture, propose the minimal set of additions needed for a working invite system: database changes, API endpoints, server actions, auth checks, pages, and components. Do not implement yet; first give me a concrete plan aligned to the existing codebase.
Project context
Copies the project goal, technical details, current step, previous progress, and checks so your AI tool understands what it is working on.
Expected after this step
A code-aware implementation plan showing the existing user/workspace/membership setup and the exact files or areas to update.
Should not happen
- ✕Building only a modal or form without any backend invite persistence
- ✕Creating invite links that are not validated server-side
- ✕Marking invites as accepted in the UI without creating membership records
- ✕Letting any logged-in user send invites regardless of role
Verify gate — prove this step works before continuing
Do not move on until every check is true. Add proof notes — a checked box alone is weak proof. Checks are manual by default; deploy/API probes live under “More verification tools” and do not auto-check boxes.
Do not continue if…
- !Building only a modal or form without any backend invite persistence
- !Creating invite links that are not validated server-side
- !Marking invites as accepted in the UI without creating membership records
- !Letting any logged-in user send invites regardless of role
- !Forgetting expiration, duplicate invite handling, or revoke logic
- !Accept flow works for existing users only and breaks for new signups
Repair path — if this step fails
Use the Repair Prompt when a verify gate fails. Loop: Detected → Diagnosed → Repair issued → Changed → Retested → Resolved
Show repair prompt textShow
You gave a generic plan. Re-scan the actual codebase and map the existing auth, workspace, and membership structure from real files. Show the exact models, routes, and pages that already exist, then revise the invite implementation plan to fit them.
Your notes for this step
Definition of Done
Final route-level requirements. Manual checks — separate from per-step verify gates. Completing step gates does not auto-check these. Route completion is not a production-ready claim.