What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Prompt-Cache-Aware Conversation Design, Flows created 3 implementation stages and 9 checks.
You asked for: Restructure context assembly for maximum cache hits: stable-first ordering, append-only history, and isolation of volatile content.. Flows generated 3 stages because the application requires Context ordered stable-first: system prompt, tool definitions, then history, then volatile state; History strictly append-only between compactions - no in-place edits to old turns; Volatile content (timestamps, usage counters) moved out of the cached prefix. 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: A timestamp in the system prompt silently killing the cache every turn; Re-sorting or rewriting history each call so no prefix ever matches; Injecting the dynamic plan reminder at the top instead of the tail.
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
3 stages · 9 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: Diffs captured on real turns
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 3
Not startedAudit context stability
Find every byte that changes between turns - each one is a cache killer.
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
- Prompt-Cache-Aware Conversation Design
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 my agent's context assembly for cache hostility. Capture the exact assembled context for three consecutive turns and diff them. Classify every difference: EXPECTED GROWTH (new turns appended at the end - fine), PREFIX MUTATIONS (anything changing before the append point - cache killers), and VOLATILE INJECTIONS (timestamps, counters, randomized ordering, per-turn IDs inside stable sections). Common culprits from harness analyses: current-time in the system prompt, re-rendered plan blocks at the top, tool definitions re-serialized in unstable order. Produce the diff report with each mutation's source located in code.
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 three-turn diff report locating every prefix mutation.
Should not happen
- ✕A timestamp in the system prompt silently killing the cache every turn
- ✕Re-sorting or rewriting history each call so no prefix ever matches
- ✕Injecting the dynamic plan reminder at the top instead of the tail
- ✕Claiming cache wins without reading the usage fields that prove them
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…
- !A timestamp in the system prompt silently killing the cache every turn
- !Re-sorting or rewriting history each call so no prefix ever matches
- !Injecting the dynamic plan reminder at the top instead of the tail
- !Claiming cache wins without reading the usage fields that prove them
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 diff is empty but bills are still high. Verify you are diffing the exact serialized request payload (not your in-memory structures) - serialization order and whitespace count too.
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.