What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Episodic, Semantic, and Procedural Stores, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Split memory into three typed stores - episodic (events), semantic (facts), procedural (skills) - with type-appropriate schemas, recall, and lifecycles.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires Three stores with distinct schemas: episodes, facts, and procedures; A classification step routing new memories to the right store; Type-appropriate recall: episodes by time/task, facts by topic, procedures by goal. 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: Facts phrased as stories, so recall returns anecdotes when the agent needs truth; Procedures without verification steps - recipes that cannot be trusted; Episodes hoarded forever at full fidelity, bloating the store.
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: Schemas capture type-distinct fields
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
- 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
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 three schemas
Each memory kind answers a different question - schema follows.
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
- Episodic, Semantic, and Procedural Stores
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 schemas for the three stores. EPISODIC (what happened): {session_id, date, task, outcome, notable_events[], artifacts_touched[]} - compact narrative records of sessions and incidents. SEMANTIC (what is true): {statement, topic, provenance, confidence, source_episodes[]} - atomic declarative facts. PROCEDURAL (how to do): {goal, preconditions[], steps[], verification, failure_modes[], last_validated, source_episodes[]} - executable recipes. Write two real examples per store from my project history, including one entry that must be SPLIT (a session story containing both a new fact and a new recipe) to demonstrate the routing discipline.
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
Three schemas with real examples including a demonstrated split.
Should not happen
- ✕Facts phrased as stories, so recall returns anecdotes when the agent needs truth
- ✕Procedures without verification steps - recipes that cannot be trusted
- ✕Episodes hoarded forever at full fidelity, bloating the store
- ✕No links between layers, so a failed episode never corrects the stale procedure
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…
- !Facts phrased as stories, so recall returns anecdotes when the agent needs truth
- !Procedures without verification steps - recipes that cannot be trusted
- !Episodes hoarded forever at full fidelity, bloating the store
- !No links between layers, so a failed episode never corrects the stale procedure
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 examples are interchangeable across stores. Sharpen with the question test: episodes answer 'what happened?', facts answer 'what is true?', procedures answer 'how do I?' - rewrite each example until it answers only its own question.
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.