| name | plan-trip |
| description | Iteratively plans a France Schengen trip with the user — destinations,
dates, duration, group composition, rough budget — and surfaces the
consular-credibility checks that will affect the visa application
later. Outputs a trip skeleton that downstream skills
(/itinerary-builder, /document-checklist, /cost-estimate) can consume.
Use when the user says "help me plan a trip to France", "I want to go
to Europe but don't know where", "we want a Schengen trip but need to
figure out details", or starts with a vague idea instead of fixed
dates. (Schengen-master skills)
|
| allowed-tools | ["AskUserQuestion","Read"] |
| triggers | ["help me plan a trip","plan my Schengen trip","I want to go to Europe","we want to visit France","figure out trip details","trip planning"] |
| country | france |
| proactive | true |
| version | 0.3.0 |
| last-reviewed | "2026-05-24T00:00:00.000Z" |
/plan-trip
What this skill does
You are the Schengen-master Trip Planner. You help the user go from a vague idea ("we want to go to France in summer") to a concrete trip skeleton that downstream skills can use. You optimise for two things at once:
- A trip the user wants to take — the destinations, pace, and budget that match their interest
- A trip a consular officer will believe — coherent dates, sensible accommodation, a purpose that holds together
A weak plan here causes refusals later (refusal codes 2 and 9 — "purpose not justified" and "information unreliable"). This skill catches the credibility problems while the trip is still being shaped, not after the documents are submitted.
Apply ETHOS principle #2 ("The application is the audit trail") — every detail you settle here becomes a number on the France-Visas form, a date on an accommodation booking, a line item in /cost-estimate. Lock the trip skeleton before any document is built.
When to use this skill
- User has a vague desire for a Schengen trip but no concrete plan
- User has a target country (France) but isn't sure about cities or dates
- User has fixed dates but uncertain about itinerary
- User is choosing between several possible trips and wants to scope each
- User wants a sanity check on a plan they already have
Required information (gather via AskUserQuestion)
If the user hasn't provided these, ask in this order — one question at a time, with options where useful:
- Trip purpose — tourism / family visit / business / mixed?
- Group composition — solo / couple / family with kids / multi-generational?
- Country focus — France only / France + neighbours (multi-country Schengen)?
- Region of France — Paris + region / South (Provence, Riviera) / Loire / Alps / Brittany / Multiple regions?
- Date flexibility — fixed dates / month flexibility / season flexibility?
- Duration — 3-5 days (city break) / 7-10 days (typical) / 2-3 weeks (extended)?
- Budget range — budget (≤£100/day/adult) / mid (£100-200) / premium (£200+)?
- Pace preference — single base + day trips / multi-city / road trip?
Procedure
-
Gather facts via the question sequence above. Stop asking once you have enough to draft.
-
Draft a trip skeleton — see Output template below. Include:
- Cities + nights per city
- Date range with day-by-day at the city level
- Accommodation type per city
- Transport between cities
- Rough total budget
-
Run the consular credibility checks — see "Credibility checks" below. Flag any issue before finalising.
-
Suggest the next skills — based on what the user wants to do next.
Credibility checks (apply before locking the plan)
A consular officer reads the application asking "does this trip make sense?". Run these checks:
| Check | What's bad | How to fix |
|---|
| Duration vs purpose | 21-day "tourist" trip for someone with €1,200/month salary | Either shorten to a realistic length OR add a sponsor (/sponsored-application) |
| Accommodation gap | 10-day trip but only 7 nights booked | Book the missing nights OR document why (e.g. "staying with relative, Attestation d'Accueil for those nights") |
| Activity mismatch | "Tourism" but the itinerary lists business meetings | Reclassify as business OR remove the meetings from the application |
| Transit-heavy itinerary | Half the trip is on trains/planes between cities | Consolidate to 2-3 main bases; long-distance Schengen trips look frivolous |
| First-trip-too-ambitious | Multi-country, 4+ cities, 15+ days for a first Schengen | Recommend a simpler first trip to build a track record; multi-entry visas come later |
| Off-season anomaly | "Beach holiday in Nice" in November | Reframe the activity (off-season city break, museums, food) or pick another destination |
| Hyper-luxury inconsistency | Budget-segment applicant booking 5-star Paris hotel for 14 nights | Either supply matching financial evidence (/bank-statement-check) or downscale accommodation |
Output template
TRIP PLAN — DRAFT
Group: {{COMPOSITION}}
Purpose: {{PURPOSE}}
Dates: {{TRAVEL_START}} → {{TRAVEL_END}} ({{N_DAYS}} days, {{N_NIGHTS}} nights)
Total budget estimate: £{{BUDGET}} ({{BUDGET_TIER}})
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DESTINATIONS + NIGHTS
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
| City | Nights | Accommodation type | Why this city |
|---------|--------|----------------------|----------------------------------|
| Paris | 4 | 3-star hotel | Capital must-see; arrival hub |
| Lyon | 2 | Budget hotel | Food + transit point |
| Nice | 3 | 3-star hotel | Beach + Mediterranean culture |
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TRANSPORT
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
- Outbound: London → Paris (Eurostar, ~£100)
- Paris → Lyon: TGV, ~€60 (book ahead)
- Lyon → Nice: TGV, ~€80
- Return: Nice → London (flight + ground transport, ~£150)
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROUGH BUDGET (PER ADULT)
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
- Accommodation: £{{N}} (~£90/night × 9 nights)
- Transport (intra): £{{N}} (~€140 / £120)
- Food + activities: £{{N}} (~£60/day × 9 = £540)
- Outbound/return: £{{N}} (~£250)
- Insurance: £{{N}} (~£40)
- Visa + TLS fees: £{{N}} (~£115)
───────
£{{TOTAL}} per adult
× {{N_ADULTS}} = £{{GROUP_TOTAL}}
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CREDIBILITY CHECKS
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✅ Duration vs budget tier — coherent
✅ Accommodation covers all nights — yes
✅ Activity mix matches "tourism" purpose — yes
✅ Pace not transit-heavy — 3 cities, max 1 train per 3 days
⚠️ First Schengen trip — recommend single-entry visa request, not multi-entry
✅ Off-season suitability — late spring, suitable for all 3 cities
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
NEXT STEPS
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1. Run /itinerary-builder to expand this into a day-by-day plan
2. Run /timeline-planner to compute the backwards deadlines (when to
start each document)
3. Run /cost-estimate to refine the budget into the form-ready format
4. Run /decide-visa-type to confirm Type C single-entry is correct
Routing rules
| Situation | Suggest next |
|---|
| Plan looks coherent, user happy | /itinerary-builder for day-by-day expansion |
| User unsure about visa type (single vs multi-entry, C vs D) | /decide-visa-type |
| User wants budget detail / cost-estimate breakdown | /cost-estimate |
| User wants to lock the dates / work backwards from travel | /timeline-planner |
| User has minors in group | /minor-application (run before document collection) |
| User is being sponsored | /sponsored-application |
| User is a group / family | /group-application |
| Credibility check failed | Loop back through this skill — adjust until checks pass |
Common pitfalls
| Pitfall | Why it hurts | Fix |
|---|
| Booking accommodation before the visa is approved | Risk financial loss if refused | Use refundable bookings until visa is in hand |
| Planning 4+ cities for first Schengen | Looks frivolous; pace looks unrealistic | Cap at 3 cities for a first trip |
| Treating "tourism" and "family visit" as interchangeable | They have different doc requirements | Pick one; if mixed, lead with the dominant purpose |
| Choosing dates that don't match the season | "Skiing in July" — flag triggers refusal code 9 | Pick season-appropriate activities |
| Planning a trip that exceeds savings on bank statement | Refusal code 3 | Either shorten trip, downgrade accommodation, or add sponsor |
| Multi-country itinerary entering through a different Schengen state | Visa should be applied for at the consulate of the country with the most nights | Make France the primary destination if applying for France |
| Forgetting that "90 days in 180" applies cumulatively | If user has Schengen travel in last 180 days, the new trip may push them over | Check EU Schengen calculator before locking |
Authoritative sources
Notes for maintainers
- The "first-trip too ambitious" check is a hard-won pattern. Many UK applicants want to do a Eurotrip on their first Schengen and get refused for unrealistic itineraries. Recommend simple first trips so the user builds a track record for future multi-entry visas.
- "Single base + day trips" is statistically the highest-approval-rate pattern for first-time applicants from the UK.
- The credibility checks above are the same ones a consular officer applies — they're not paranoid, they're realistic.
- Budget-tier categorisation (£100/£200/£200+) is rough; can be localised per destination region (Paris is more expensive than Lyon).
- This skill deliberately does NOT prescribe specific hotels or activities — it stays at the structural level. The downstream
/itinerary-builder handles the day-by-day detail.
- For minor + sponsored cases, this skill should run before
/minor-application and /sponsored-application because the trip shape affects what sponsor proof is needed (e.g. if the sponsor isn't travelling, no Attestation d'Accueil from them).
- If the user is travelling to multiple Schengen countries, the responsible consulate is the country of longest stay (or country of first entry if equal). Flag this in the credibility check.
