What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Booking System, Flows created 6 implementation stages and 19 checks.
You asked for: Implement working availability display, slot booking, double-booking prevention, and booking management.. Flows generated 6 stages because the application requires Bookable services/resources with defined time slots; Availability view that reflects existing bookings; Booking creation with confirmation. 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: A calendar UI where every slot always shows available; Bookings stored in local state only; Two users able to book the same slot.
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
6 stages · 19 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: Slot duration and hours are defined
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 Create then refresh still shows the record
- api_probe Edit then refresh keeps the edit
- api_probe Delete then refresh removes the record
- api_probe Nonexistent record ID fails cleanly
- cross_account_probe Cross-user record identifier is rejected
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 6
Not startedDefine the booking model
Slots, durations, and conflict rules must be explicit before building UI.
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
- Booking System
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.
Define the booking spec. Specify: what is being booked (service/resource) and its schedulable hours; slot duration and how slots are computed for a given date; the booking record (user, resource, start/end datetime, status); the conflict rule (a slot with an active booking is unavailable); and cancellation policy (cancel frees the slot). State that conflicts are enforced at the database/backend level.
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 concrete slot and conflict model ready to implement.
Should not happen
- ✕A calendar UI where every slot always shows available
- ✕Bookings stored in local state only
- ✕Two users able to book the same slot
- ✕Cancel that does not free the slot
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…
- !A calendar UI where every slot always shows available
- !Bookings stored in local state only
- !Two users able to book the same slot
- !Cancel that does not free the slot
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
The spec has no conflict rule. Add the exact rule for when a slot is unavailable and where it is enforced (backend query/constraint, not the UI).
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.