What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Detect Command Obfuscation and Parser-Mismatch Attacks, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Build obfuscation defenses: multi-view quote extraction, detection for quote-trick flag smuggling, and checks for parser-vs-shell divergence (brace expansion, escaped operators).. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires Quote extraction producing at least three views: double-quotes kept, fully unquoted, quote characters preserved; Detection of flag-smuggling tricks: ANSI-C quoting, empty-quote concatenation, quote chains, triple quotes; Detection of parser-mismatch primitives: brace expansion and backslash-escaped operators. 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: Checking only the parsed token list, which is precisely what the attack bypasses; One clever regex expected to catch all quoting tricks - each family needs its own detector; A quote tracker that toggles state on escaped quotes, desyncing permanently mid-command.
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: Three views produced and documented with their u…
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 startedBuild multi-view quote extraction
Different attacks are visible at different stripping levels.
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
- Detect Command Obfuscation and Parser-Mismatch Attacks
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.
Implement an extraction function producing three views of every command: KEEP-DOUBLE (single-quoted content stripped, double-quoted kept - because shell metacharacters like ';' and '|' still act inside double quotes in some positions and this view exposes them), FULLY-UNQUOTED (all quoted content stripped - the view for redirection detection, since quoted '<' and '>' are inert), and KEEP-QUOTE-CHARS (content stripped but the quote characters themselves preserved - the view that reveals quote-adjacency attacks like a quoted fragment abutting a '#'). Build the underlying quote-state tracker carefully: process backslash escapes BEFORE quote toggling - inside double quotes, an escaped quote is a literal character, and toggling on it desyncs the tracker for the rest of the command. Unit-test the tracker against nasty edges: escaped quotes inside quotes, adjacent empty quotes, unterminated quotes.
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 tested extraction utility returning all three views with a correct state tracker.
Should not happen
- ✕Checking only the parsed token list, which is precisely what the attack bypasses
- ✕One clever regex expected to catch all quoting tricks - each family needs its own detector
- ✕A quote tracker that toggles state on escaped quotes, desyncing permanently mid-command
- ✕Treating the checks as done - obfuscation is an arms race, and the corpus is the memory
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…
- !Checking only the parsed token list, which is precisely what the attack bypasses
- !One clever regex expected to catch all quoting tricks - each family needs its own detector
- !A quote tracker that toggles state on escaped quotes, desyncing permanently mid-command
- !Treating the checks as done - obfuscation is an arms race, and the corpus is the memory
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 tracker desyncs on a command with an escaped double quote. That is the classic ordering bug: handle the backslash first (consume the next character unconditionally outside single quotes) and only then consider quote toggling - re-run the edge-case suite after the fix.
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.