What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Build a Command Security Pipeline for Your Agent, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Build a layered command-validation pipeline: a shared result contract, early fast-path validators, a main chain of single-purpose checks, and severity-aware result selection.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires A shared validator contract: every check returns allow, ask, deny, or passthrough; Early validators that short-circuit common safe patterns before the main chain; Single-purpose main-chain validators - one attack class per check. 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: One mega-function of nested ifs where fixing one check breaks another; Validators that mutate shared parse state, creating order-dependent bugs; Path checks that trust permission rules over the hard denylist.
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: Contract covers allow/ask/deny/passthrough plus …
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
- cross_account_probe User B cannot see or change User A’s data
- cross_account_probe Participant cannot call coach/admin endpoints
- cross_account_probe URL/body ID tampering cannot cross tenant boundary
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 startedDefine the contract and pipeline skeleton
A uniform result type is what makes 20 checks composable.
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 Command Security Pipeline for Your Agent
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 validator contract: each validator is a pure function taking the parsed command context and returning a result of allow (confident-safe: short-circuit the pipeline), ask (needs user confirmation, with reason), deny (block, with reason), or passthrough (no opinion: next validator). Add a severity flag distinguishing parser-mismatch findings (the command will execute differently than it parses - must interrupt) from informational ones (redirections, newlines - confirm but do not panic). Build the pipeline runner: run early validators first (allow can short-circuit), then the main chain collecting results, then apply selection - any deny wins, else the highest-severity ask, else allow. Wire ALL execution paths through it, including sub-agents and background tasks.
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 typed contract and pipeline runner that every execution path uses.
Should not happen
- ✕One mega-function of nested ifs where fixing one check breaks another
- ✕Validators that mutate shared parse state, creating order-dependent bugs
- ✕Path checks that trust permission rules over the hard denylist
- ✕First-match-wins reporting that surfaces a warning while hiding a critical finding
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…
- !One mega-function of nested ifs where fixing one check breaks another
- !Validators that mutate shared parse state, creating order-dependent bugs
- !Path checks that trust permission rules over the hard denylist
- !First-match-wins reporting that surfaces a warning while hiding a critical finding
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
Some code path still executes commands directly. Grep for every call site of your executor and route it through the pipeline - a security pipeline with a bypass is theater; make the raw executor private so new bypasses cannot compile.
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.