What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Design Tool Schemas for Agents, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Redesign my tool schemas as constraints: precise types, enums, bounded values, required-ness that matches reality, and validation errors that teach.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires Every tool parameter typed as tightly as its domain allows (enums, ranges, formats); Free-text parameters justified or eliminated - each one is a misuse surface; Required vs optional matching actual semantics, with safe defaults documented in the schema. 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: Stringly-typed everything, inviting the model to improvise; Optional parameters that are actually required, causing silent wrong behavior; Extra invented parameters absorbed silently by permissive parsing.
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: Every parameter assessed against its real domain
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 startedAudit schemas for looseness
Every loose type is an invitation the model will accept.
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 Tool Schemas for Agents
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 all my tool schemas for constraint weakness. For each parameter record: current type, whether its real domain is narrower (a string that is actually one of 4 modes, a number that must be 1-100), whether it is truly required, whether its description would let a newcomer produce a valid value, and misuse evidence from transcripts (wrong shapes the model has actually sent). Rank the tools by misuse frequency. Deliver the audit table with a proposed tightened type for every weak parameter.
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 parameter-level audit with proposed tightened types.
Should not happen
- ✕Stringly-typed everything, inviting the model to improvise
- ✕Optional parameters that are actually required, causing silent wrong behavior
- ✕Extra invented parameters absorbed silently by permissive parsing
- ✕Validation errors like 'invalid input' that teach the model nothing
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…
- !Stringly-typed everything, inviting the model to improvise
- !Optional parameters that are actually required, causing silent wrong behavior
- !Extra invented parameters absorbed silently by permissive parsing
- !Validation errors like 'invalid input' that teach the model nothing
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 audit says everything is fine but misuse continues. Pull 10 failed tool calls from transcripts and work backwards - each failure traces to a constraint the schema failed to express.
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.