What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Hook a Permission Layer onto Dangerous Tools, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Build a pre-execution hook layer: deterministic danger rules, approval escalation, protected paths, and hook-based extensibility.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires A pre-tool-use hook point in the dispatch path where rules run before execution; Deterministic danger rules: destructive command patterns, protected paths, secret files; Three verdicts: allow, require-approval, block - each with a reason. 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: Safety rules living in the system prompt where clever phrasing routes around them; Pattern rules so naive that rm -rf ./ passes because the pattern expected rm -rf /; Hooks that crash the loop instead of returning verdicts.
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: Patterns match normalized commands
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
- 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
- api_probe Create then refresh still shows the record
- api_probe Edit then refresh keeps the edit
- api_probe Delete then refresh removes the record
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 danger rule set
Enumerate what must never run silently - concretely.
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
- Hook a Permission Layer onto Dangerous Tools
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.
Write the danger rules as data. COMMAND PATTERNS (normalized before matching: resolve quoting, collapse whitespace): recursive deletion (rm -rf and equivalents on any path), git destructive ops (force-push, hard reset on shared branches, clean -fdx), bulk data ops (DROP/TRUNCATE, mass UPDATE without WHERE), package/system mutations (global installs, chmod -R 777, curl piped to shell). PROTECTED PATHS for writes and deletes: .env* and secret/key files, .git internals, paths outside the workspace root, CI and infra configs (approval, not block). Assign each rule a verdict (approval vs block) and a reason string. Store as a versioned config file. Review the list against my actual toolset and add tool-specific rules where needed.
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 versioned danger-rule config with verdicts and reasons.
Should not happen
- ✕Safety rules living in the system prompt where clever phrasing routes around them
- ✕Pattern rules so naive that rm -rf ./ passes because the pattern expected rm -rf /
- ✕Hooks that crash the loop instead of returning verdicts
- ✕No project extensibility, so real deployments disable the layer 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…
- !Safety rules living in the system prompt where clever phrasing routes around them
- !Pattern rules so naive that rm -rf ./ passes because the pattern expected rm -rf /
- !Hooks that crash the loop instead of returning verdicts
- !No project extensibility, so real deployments disable the layer 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 list is generic. Walk each of my tools asking 'what is the worst call this accepts?' and write a rule for every answer - the rule set must reflect this harness, not a textbook.
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.