What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Pair Every Prompt Rule with a Code Backstop, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Build the dual-defense architecture: map prompt rules to enforcement needs, implement code checks independent of prompt wording, and route violations through allow/ask/deny.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires An inventory of every behavioral rule currently expressed only in prompts; Each rule classified: guidance-only, or requires code enforcement; Code checks that work even if the prompt is deleted entirely. 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: Prompt-only safety: one bad sample away from a destructive action; Code-only safety: the model floods the gate with denied attempts because nothing guides it; Code checks keyed to prompt phrasing, breaking when the prompt is reworded.
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 prompt rule captured with worst case
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 startedInventory soft rules and classify enforcement needs
Know which promises are currently backed by nothing.
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
- Pair Every Prompt Rule with a Code Backstop
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.
Extract every behavioral rule from your system and tool prompts into a list. For each, record: what it protects (data loss, money, credentials, repo history, user trust), the worst case if the model ignores it, and how often transcripts show it violated. Classify: GUIDANCE (style, tool preference - prompt-only is fine, though code may add suggestions), CONFIRM (destructive-but-legitimate operations - needs an ask gate), and BLOCK (never legitimate without explicit authorization - needs a deny). The output is an enforcement matrix: rule, class, existing enforcement (usually none), required check. Prioritize by worst case, not frequency.
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
An enforcement matrix mapping every prompt rule to its required code backing.
Should not happen
- ✕Prompt-only safety: one bad sample away from a destructive action
- ✕Code-only safety: the model floods the gate with denied attempts because nothing guides it
- ✕Code checks keyed to prompt phrasing, breaking when the prompt is reworded
- ✕Everything denied outright, training users to bypass the agent entirely
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…
- !Prompt-only safety: one bad sample away from a destructive action
- !Code-only safety: the model floods the gate with denied attempts because nothing guides it
- !Code checks keyed to prompt phrasing, breaking when the prompt is reworded
- !Everything denied outright, training users to bypass the agent entirely
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 matrix says most rules are guidance. Re-test each against: 'if the model violated this once at the worst moment, is the damage acceptable and reversible?' If not, it is confirm or block - optimism here is precisely the failure the second layer exists to catch.
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.