What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Design the Permission Approval UX, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Rebuild the approval experience: informative diff-first prompts, risk-tiered presentation, scoped grant options, and measured approval fatigue.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires File-change approvals rendered as diffs, not descriptions; Command approvals showing the exact command, cwd, and a plain-language risk note; Risk-proportional presentation: routine asks are compact, dangerous asks are unmissable. 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: Approval prompts that say 'Agent wants to edit file.js - Allow?' with no diff; Every ask styled identically, so rm approval looks like ls approval; No session grants, generating twenty prompts for twenty edits of one file.
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: Approvals-per-task measured
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 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
- 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 startedAudit the current approval moments
Count them, read them, feel the fatigue.
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
- Design the Permission Approval UX
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.
Audit approvals as they exist. Instrument or review recent sessions and collect: approvals per task (average and worst case), what each prompt actually displayed, time-to-decision per approval, and any decline-then-nothing dead ends. Classify prompts by information sufficiency: could the user decide correctly from the prompt alone, or did they approve on faith? Interview or observe one real user session if possible. Deliver the audit: the fatigue numbers, the faith-approval percentage, and the three worst prompt examples verbatim.
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 fatigue-and-sufficiency audit with concrete numbers.
Should not happen
- ✕Approval prompts that say 'Agent wants to edit file.js - Allow?' with no diff
- ✕Every ask styled identically, so rm approval looks like ls approval
- ✕No session grants, generating twenty prompts for twenty edits of one file
- ✕Unmeasured fatigue, discovered only when users disable safety wholesale
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…
- !Approval prompts that say 'Agent wants to edit file.js - Allow?' with no diff
- !Every ask styled identically, so rm approval looks like ls approval
- !No session grants, generating twenty prompts for twenty edits of one file
- !Unmeasured fatigue, discovered only when users disable safety wholesale
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
No instrumentation exists to audit. Add approval-event logging first (prompt content, decision, latency) and run three real tasks - the redesign needs a baseline to beat.
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.