Skip to content
Flows

What Flows just did

Based on your request to build Make Parallel Sub-Agents Share the Prompt Cache, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.

You asked for: Engineer fork dispatch for maximum prompt-cache reuse: stable prefixes, identical placeholders, exact configuration inheritance, and measured cache-hit rates.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires Sibling fork requests identical in every byte up to the per-child directive; Placeholder tool-results with fixed, shared text for pending parent tool calls; Tool definitions passed through exactly - no re-filtering, re-ordering, or re-serialization. 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: Per-child placeholder text ('processing task 1 of 3') breaking prefix identity; Re-running tool filtering for each child, changing array order and killing the cache; Injecting the child directive before the shared history instead of after.

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: Request field order documented

Add a proof note on each check — a checkbox alone is weak proof.

Probes & advanced tools are under “More verification tools”. Experience level: Settings.

Make Parallel Sub-Agents Share the Prompt Cache
Agent Architecture60-120 minutes

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

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

0/4 steps0%
Recording plan identity…

Step 1 of 4

Not started

Map what must be byte-identical

The cache matches prefixes; know exactly what is in yours.

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

Not checkedChecks not locked

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
  • Make Parallel Sub-Agents Share the Prompt Cache

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
Plan instructions

Use these instructions in Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Emergent, or another builder.

Write out the full request structure your provider sees, in order: system prompt, tool definitions, conversation messages, and (last) the new content. Everything before the first differing byte is cacheable prefix - so the design goal is pushing all per-child variation to the very end. Inventory your current dispatch path for prefix pollution: timestamps or run ids in the system prompt, tool arrays rebuilt per child (set iteration order!), serialization that does not guarantee key order, permission-dependent tool filtering that differs per child, and configuration fields (thinking settings, verbosity) that default differently for children than the parent. Each finding is a work item for the next step. Also confirm your provider's cache granularity and minimum-prefix rules so you aim at real boundaries.

The AI tool writes code — Flows only organizes the plan · Complete implementation prompt with explicit requirements

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 request-structure map with every source of prefix variation identified.

Should not happen

  • Per-child placeholder text ('processing task 1 of 3') breaking prefix identity
  • Re-running tool filtering for each child, changing array order and killing the cache
  • Injecting the child directive before the shared history instead of after
  • Assuming savings without measuring - one serialization change and you pay full price silently

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…

  • !Per-child placeholder text ('processing task 1 of 3') breaking prefix identity
  • !Re-running tool filtering for each child, changing array order and killing the cache
  • !Injecting the child directive before the shared history instead of after
  • !Assuming savings without measuring - one serialization change and you pay full price silently

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

You cannot find the variation but caches still miss. Capture two sibling requests raw (exact bytes on the wire) and binary-diff them - the culprit is usually invisible in logs: whitespace, field ordering, or a library re-serializing floats differently.

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.

0/4 · manual