What Flows just did
Based on your request to build Tool Result Size Management, Flows created 4 implementation stages and 12 checks.
You asked for: Enforce output budgets across all tools with signal-preserving truncation, pagination for big result sets, and references for oversized artifacts.. Flows generated 4 stages because the application requires A per-tool output token budget with a global default; Head+tail truncation preserving both ends with an honest elision marker; Pagination for list-like results (search hits, directory listings). 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: Naive head-only truncation cutting off the error at the tail; Silent truncation the model does not know happened, breeding hallucinated completions; No pagination, so 'list files' becomes a context bomb.
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: Wrapper-level enforcement covers all tools
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 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 startedBudget every tool's output
The cap comes first; elegance comes after.
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
- Tool Result Size Management
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.
Implement output budgeting. Add a global default output budget (e.g. ~2000 tokens) with per-tool overrides where justified (file viewers higher, quick checks lower); enforce it in the tool execution wrapper so no individual tool can forget; measure output size before returning and route over-budget results into the truncation pipeline (next step). Add logging: every over-budget event records tool, actual size, and budget. Run a survey of recent transcripts to set data-informed budgets: what does each tool typically produce, and what did the model actually use?
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
Enforced budgets at the wrapper level with data-informed values.
Should not happen
- ✕Naive head-only truncation cutting off the error at the tail
- ✕Silent truncation the model does not know happened, breeding hallucinated completions
- ✕No pagination, so 'list files' becomes a context bomb
- ✕Dumping artifacts into context that should have been stored and referenced
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…
- !Naive head-only truncation cutting off the error at the tail
- !Silent truncation the model does not know happened, breeding hallucinated completions
- !No pagination, so 'list files' becomes a context bomb
- !Dumping artifacts into context that should have been stored and referenced
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
Individual tools bypass the budget. Enforcement must live in the single execution wrapper every call flows through - if tools return directly to the loop anywhere, close that path.
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.