skills/vacation-planner/references/interaction-contract.md

# Collaborative planning contract

Use this contract for a full vacation, honeymoon, destination decision, or major itinerary rebuild. The goal is a genuinely personal plan without turning the conversation into an intake form.

## Select a mode

### Collaborative mode — default

Use when the traveler asks for help planning, is choosing among destinations, or has not explicitly requested a one-shot answer. Work in stages and wait for the traveler at meaningful decision gates.

### Express mode

Use only when the traveler asks for a one-shot plan, says “surprise me,” requests no follow-up questions, or explicitly delegates all choices. State the consequential assumptions, make one coherent recommendation, and invite revisions after delivery. Do not use missing low-impact preferences as a reason to block express mode.

### Revision mode

Use when a plan already exists. Identify the decision that triggered the revision, preserve unaffected approved choices, and reopen only dependent decisions.

## Decision gates

Skip any gate whose decisions are already settled. A gate is complete only when the traveler answers it or explicitly delegates it.

### Gate 1 — traveler and trip brief

Reflect known facts in a compact brief. Ask no more than four high-impact questions at once, chosen from:

- exact or bounded dates and origin;
- traveler count and relevant ages;
- all-in versus land-only budget and flexibility;
- trip purpose and desired emotional character;
- pace and tolerance for moving hotels;
- must-haves, hard no’s, and non-negotiable constraints;
- mobility, dietary, allergy, medical-equipment, or medication needs;
- what has already been booked.

Use friendly contrasts when they make the answer easier: “more slow food-and-neighborhood time, or more landmark coverage?” Prefer a recommended default when evidence or the existing brief supports one. Do not interrogate the traveler about every category.

### Gate 2 — destination, route, and bases

If the destination is undecided, do enough current research to present two to four meaningfully different candidates. For each, show trip character, rough budget fit, seasonal fit, and the main compromise. Recommend one and ask which direction feels right.

If the destination is selected, present one recommended route plus at most two real alternatives. Make base count, transfer burden, and what each option sacrifices visible. Ask the traveler to select, combine, or revise the route before deep research.

### Gate 3 — trip personality

After the route is stable, surface only choices that define the experience. Use a compact decision board rather than a long questionnaire. Typical choices include:

- lodging character and splurge priorities;
- signature experiences versus unstructured exploration;
- food emphasis and reservation appetite;
- driving versus transit when both are viable;
- early starts, nightlife, beach/rest time, or strenuous activity;
- which hidden-gem leads deserve deeper verification.

Offer two or three curated options, mark the recommendation, and explain what changes in the trip. Ask for the traveler’s reaction, including what they dislike; negative preference is often more informative than another rating.

### Gate 4 — route-and-budget skeleton

Present the proposed bases, nights, day-level rhythm, anchor experiences, major transfers, and a realistic budget band. Call out the largest uncertainty and any assumption likely to move the total. Ask for approval before selecting detailed hotels, restaurants, tours, or timed tickets.

If the plan misses the target, do not silently degrade it. Offer explicit tradeoffs such as fewer bases, a lodging tier change, different dates, or removing a costly anchor, and let the traveler choose.

### Gate 5 — curated booking choices

Research deeply after the skeleton is approved. For material decisions, show a best-fit option, a value option, and an intentional upgrade only when the alternatives are genuinely different. This gate may be combined with Gate 4 for a simple trip.

Ask for direction before locking a nonrefundable, high-cost, schedule-defining, or taste-sensitive choice into the recommended configuration. Routine meal suggestions and flexible minor activities do not need approval.

### Gate 6 — final approval and delivery

Summarize what the traveler chose, what was delegated, and what remains uncertain. Run budget reconciliation and audit, repair material problems, then deliver the full written plan and dashboard. Clearly label any item still awaiting live verification or traveler approval.

## Question quality

Ask when an answer could change at least one of: destination, bases, trip length, transfer mode, budget by a meaningful amount, daily intensity, accessibility feasibility, or a high-cost/high-commitment booking.

Do not pause for:

- cosmetic formatting preferences;
- choices that are easily reversible and low cost;
- facts that current research can establish;
- a preference already expressed or strongly implied by an approved choice;
- approval of every restaurant or minor stop.

End a checkpoint with one clear response request. Make it easy to answer in natural language, by selecting labels, or by saying “use your recommendation.” Do not continue into the next decision phase in the same response.

## Continuity

Maintain a short decision ledger inside the canonical brief:

- **Confirmed:** facts and explicit choices.
- **Preferred:** soft tastes and ranked priorities.
- **Delegated:** decisions the traveler asked the planner to make.
- **Open:** questions that still affect the plan.
- **Rejected:** options or styles the traveler does not want.

After each answer, update the ledger and show only the changes that matter. If new information conflicts with an earlier choice, identify the conflict and ask which priority wins rather than silently rewriting the brief.