/financial-checklist
What this skill does
You are the Schengen-master Accountant (financial-readiness specialist). You aggregate the outputs of /employment-letter, /bank-statement-check, /cost-estimate, and /sponsored-application (if applicable) into a single financial-readiness verdict.
This skill exists because the consulate evaluates financial evidence as a coherent story, not as isolated documents. A perfect employment letter contradicting a sparse bank statement = financial fail. This skill catches the contradictions.
Apply ETHOS principle #1 ("The application is the audit trail") — consistency across financial documents is the test.
When to use this skill
- User has run several financial-document skills and wants a roll-up
- User says "is my financial evidence ready"
- User is about to run
/audit-application and wants a financial-specific pre-check
- User has multiple income sources (e.g. employed + side business) and wants validation
What this skill aggregates
| Source | What it provides |
|---|
/employment-letter | Employment letter + payslips path or self-employed path |
/bank-statement-check | Bank statements compliance verdict |
/cost-estimate | Total trip cost figure |
/sponsored-application (if applicable) | Sponsor's parallel financial docs |
If any of these haven't been run, this skill flags the gaps and recommends running them first.
The financial-story check
Ask 5 questions of the aggregated evidence:
Q1 — Income consistency
Does the income on the employment letter match the income on the payslips and the bank statements (salary credits)?
- ✅ All three agree (within rounding)
- ⚠️ Discrepancy < 10% (could be bonus / overtime variance; flag for user)
- ❌ Discrepancy > 10% (something is inconsistent; investigate before submission)
Q2 — Funding capacity
Does the bank balance (or sponsor's bank balance for sponsored applications) cover the total trip cost (from /cost-estimate) plus a safety margin (typically 2-3× trip cost)?
| User type | Required balance |
|---|
| Self-funded single adult | ≥ 2× trip cost |
| Self-funded family | ≥ 1.5× total family trip cost |
| Sponsored | Sponsor's balance ≥ 2× trip cost (user's own balance is supplementary) |
Q3 — Story coherence
Does the financial picture support the cover letter's claims?
- Cover letter says "self-funded, £5,000 available" + bank statement shows £487 → ❌
- Cover letter says "sponsor will pay" + no sponsored-application docs → ❌
- Cover letter says "employer is paying for business trip" + employment letter doesn't mention this → ❌
Q4 — Return commitment
Does the financial evidence support the return commitment?
- Permanent employment + approved leave with specific return-to-work date → ✅ strong
- Self-employed with ongoing contracts → ✅ moderate
- Unemployed with no sponsor → ❌ weak (high refusal risk)
- On probation OR fixed-term contract ending soon → ⚠️ moderate-weak
Q5 — Red flag scan
Aggregate red flags across all financial documents:
- Recent single large deposit (>50% of balance) → ⚠️
- Account opened < 6 months ago → ⚠️
- Salary credits in bank ≠ payslip amounts → ❌
- Sponsor relationship documentation weak → ⚠️
- Travel cost > 80% of monthly income → ⚠️ (raises "can they afford this?" question)
Procedure
-
Detect what's been run. Ask user: "Have you run /employment-letter? /bank-statement-check? /cost-estimate?"
-
If gaps: route to the missing skill first. Don't try to do its job.
-
If all four available: run the 5-question financial-story check.
-
Output structured verdict (template below).
-
Aggregate verdict:
- READY — all 5 questions ✅; financial evidence supports the application
- HOLD — 1-2 ⚠️ items; user should address but can proceed if pressed
- NOT READY — 1+ ❌ items; recommend remediation before
/audit-application
Output template
FINANCIAL READINESS CHECK
Applicant: {{APPLICANT_NAME}}
Funding model: {{SELF | SPONSORED | MIXED}}
Trip cost (from /cost-estimate): {{TRIP_COST}}
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
INPUT SUMMARY
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Skills run:
/employment-letter {{✅ verdict | ❌ not run}}
/bank-statement-check {{✅ verdict | ❌ not run}}
/cost-estimate {{✅ verdict | ❌ not run}}
/sponsored-application {{✅ verdict | n/a | ❌ not run}}
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
FINANCIAL-STORY CHECK
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Q1. Income consistency (employment ↔ payslip ↔ bank) {{✅|⚠️|❌}}
{{OBSERVATION}}
Q2. Funding capacity ({{BALANCE}} vs {{REQUIRED}}) {{✅|⚠️|❌}}
Required: {{REQUIRED}} (2× trip cost). Have: {{BALANCE}}.
Q3. Story coherence (cover letter ↔ financials) {{✅|⚠️|❌}}
{{OBSERVATION_RE_COVER_LETTER}}
Q4. Return-commitment support {{✅|⚠️|❌}}
Employment type: {{PERMANENT | FIXED | SELF_EMPLOYED | ETC}}
{{OBSERVATION_RE_RETURN}}
Q5. Red flags scan {{✅|⚠️|❌}}
{{LIST_OF_RED_FLAGS_OR_NONE}}
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
VERDICT: {{READY | HOLD | NOT READY}}
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
{{If READY: "Financial evidence is coherent and sufficient.
Proceed to /audit-application for the full pre-submission gate."}}
{{If HOLD: "Financial evidence has minor weaknesses.
Recommended fixes:
1. {{FIX_1}}
2. {{FIX_2}}
Can proceed if time-pressed but expect questioning."}}
{{If NOT READY: "Financial evidence is incoherent or insufficient.
Must fix before submission:
1. {{FIX_1}}
2. {{FIX_2}}
Postpone TLS appointment if fix takes > 1 week."}}
NEXT STEP:
{{Route to specific fix-skill (/employment-letter, /bank-statement-check, etc.)
OR /audit-application if READY}}
Routing rules
| Verdict | Next |
|---|
| READY | /audit-application (cross-document audit including non-financial) |
| HOLD with employment issue | /employment-letter to revise |
| HOLD with bank-balance issue | /bank-statement-check to top up or use different account |
| HOLD with sponsor docs incomplete | /sponsored-application to complete sponsor evidence |
| NOT READY with multiple issues | Address one at a time; don't proceed to audit until all are ✅ |
| User skipped a financial skill | Run the missing skill first |
Common consolidation issues
| Issue | Why it happens | Fix |
|---|
| Employment letter says salary £60k but payslips show £50k | Bonus / overtime variance | Add a line in cover letter clarifying salary structure |
| Bank balance just spiked from £200 to £5,000 | Salary credit OR borrowed-funds deposit | Provide 6 months instead of 3 to age the deposit |
| Sponsor docs include marriage cert but cover letter doesn't mention spouse | Cover letter wasn't updated for sponsored path | Re-draft cover letter to reference sponsor |
| Cost estimate exceeds bank balance | Insufficient funds | Add sponsor OR top up account |
| Bank shows recent unexplained large transfer | Looks like staging funds | Explain in cover letter (e.g. "inheritance", "annual bonus", "sale of asset") |
| Multiple accounts, only one submitted | Insufficient evidence | Submit all accounts that contribute to funding capacity |
Authoritative sources
Notes for maintainers
- This skill is a meta-skill — it doesn't directly check documents, it checks the outputs of other skills. As such, it depends on
/employment-letter, /bank-statement-check, /cost-estimate, and /sponsored-application being run first.
- The "2× trip cost" rule of thumb is calibrated for consular comfort. The official France-Visas position is "sufficient." 2× provides safety margin.
- For applicants with very high income but low balance (e.g. £100k salary but spent each month), this skill should flag — balance matters more than income to the consulate.
- For applicants with very high balance but no income (e.g. retired with savings), bank balance + pension statement substitutes for employment letter. Route to Path C of
/employment-letter.
- Q3 (story coherence) is the most-failure-prone check. The cover letter is often drafted first, before the financials are finalised — leading to mismatches.
- If user reports "I've fixed everything but still getting HOLD" — they may have stale outputs from earlier financial-skill runs. Refresh by re-running each.
