What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Red-Team Your Agent with Adversarial Prompts, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Stand up an adversarial testing program: a threat-driven probe set, automated attack execution, scored results, and a remediation loop.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires A prioritized vulnerability list mapped to my agent's actual risks; Attack methods per vulnerability (direct, obfuscated, multi-turn, role-play); Automated execution against the agent with pass/fail scoring. 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: Testing only the happy path and calling the agent secure; One-off manual pokes with no reproductions or scoring; Finding vulnerabilities and never closing them.
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: Probe classes mapped to concrete assets and tool…
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)
- 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
- api_probe Nonexistent record ID fails cleanly
- cross_account_probe Cross-user record identifier is rejected
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 startedBuild a threat-driven probe set
Attack what matters to this agent, not a generic checklist.
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
- Red-Team Your Agent with Adversarial Prompts
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 the vulnerability probe set from my agent's threat model. Relevant classes for a tool-using coding agent: prompt injection (direct and indirect), data leakage (secrets, other users' data, system prompt extraction), tool/permission bypass (getting restricted actions to fire), destructive-action induction, jailbreaks of safety refusals, and excessive-agency (agent doing more than asked with real consequences). For each class, note what a successful attack would achieve against MY system specifically (what data, which tools). Prioritize by impact x likelihood. Use a red-teaming framework's probe catalog (e.g. DeepTeam-style vulnerability/attack taxonomies) as a source, but select and adapt to my risks. Deliver the prioritized probe set.
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 prioritized, threat-driven probe set adapted to the agent.
Should not happen
- ✕Testing only the happy path and calling the agent secure
- ✕One-off manual pokes with no reproductions or scoring
- ✕Finding vulnerabilities and never closing them
- ✕A red-team run once, never repeated as the agent evolves
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…
- !Testing only the happy path and calling the agent secure
- !One-off manual pokes with no reproductions or scoring
- !Finding vulnerabilities and never closing them
- !A red-team run once, never repeated as the agent evolves
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 probe set is generic model-safety tests. Re-anchor on THIS agent: which of its tools, secrets, or data would an attacker want, and which probes actually reach them - drop probes with no reachable impact here.
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.