What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Build a Repo Map for Code Navigation, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Build a repo map: parse files into symbol signatures, rank by relevance to the task, render within a token budget, and integrate it into the agent's context.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires Symbol extraction (functions, classes, methods with signatures) via tree-sitter or language parsers; A per-file digest: path plus its key symbols, compact enough to aggregate; Relevance ranking so the map shows what matters for the current task. 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: Dumping the file tree and calling it a map - names without symbols barely orient; Unranked maps where the budget is spent alphabetically instead of relevantly; Stale maps confidently pointing at moved or deleted symbols.
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
4 stages · 12 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: Signatures include parameters and returns where …
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 Logged-out users cannot open protected pages
- api_probe Protected API rejects requests without credentials
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 4
Not startedExtract symbols per file
The atom of the map is a signature, not a filename.
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
- Build a Repo Map for Code Navigation
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.
Build the extraction layer. Use tree-sitter (with the language grammars my repo needs) to parse each source file and extract: top-level functions and classes with full signatures, methods with signatures under their class, and export/visibility markers where the language has them. Store per-file digests: {path, language, symbols: [{kind, name, signature, line}], mtime, hash}. Skip vendored/generated directories via ignore rules. Handle parse failures gracefully (log, fall back to a names-only entry). Run extraction across the repo and spot-check 5 files: digests must match the code.
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
Per-file symbol digests across the repo, spot-checked.
Should not happen
- ✕Dumping the file tree and calling it a map - names without symbols barely orient
- ✕Unranked maps where the budget is spent alphabetically instead of relevantly
- ✕Stale maps confidently pointing at moved or deleted symbols
- ✕Maps so large they recreate the raw-dump problem they were meant to solve
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…
- !Dumping the file tree and calling it a map - names without symbols barely orient
- !Unranked maps where the budget is spent alphabetically instead of relevantly
- !Stale maps confidently pointing at moved or deleted symbols
- !Maps so large they recreate the raw-dump problem they were meant to solve
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
Symbols are missing for one language. Verify the tree-sitter grammar for it is installed and the query patterns cover its declaration forms - each language needs its own extraction queries.
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.