Experiment #8:
Traveler Concierge

Description:
This marks the first substantial ideation session with Claude. In this instance I outlined a travel idea that I had been thinking about for several years, a travel “concierge” agent that handles the expected, manages the unexpected, coordinates across travelers, and is built to surface across travelers devices. My initial focus was a “Happy Path” handoff, where one task ends and the next logical one begins.

To mitigate unnecessary token use, I scoped the initial prompt with a limited scenario set. Also, I prompted Claude to ask me at decision points in order resolve outstanding questions it had that could either be answered or tabled for the next iteration.

Note: that this is not building the concierge, but a plan for future implementation.

AI Tools:

• Google Notebook
• Claude Sonnet 4.6
• GitHub CoPilot

Early information requirements gathering and discussion

The initial scope I provided was a multi-part deliverable crafted via the following requirements:

  • Booking types: Lodging + Flight + Car Rental

  • Trip phases: 5 days prior to travel, 1 day prior to travel, day of travel, check-in

  • Scenarios: Common tasks/questions travelers have trip phases for each of the booking types

  • Users: Single Traveler, Multi-traveler with Booking Owner

After review of the initial scope, Claude responded with a series of scoped questions in order to more accurately construct task flows, feature specifications and communication principles.

First and second versions

After the first version was rendered, there were a series of outstanding questions needing answers, including whether or not to increase the initial scope by adding:

  1. Disruption flows

  2. International Travel scenarios

I asked Claude to review my responses before implementing in case a response was too assumptive and/or required further clarification. I have found this to be a useful (review response, conduct a UAT) to avoid unnecessary churn, reverting or token use.

The remaining unanswered questions were parked in their own section for future resolution.

Regenerate to be comprehensive

I was given the option of regenerating the plan with the additional scope of the disruption flows as part of a design decision log to or regenerate the plan entirely. Since disruption flows were a substantial addition, it made sense to invest in a complete regeneration. While I had to increase my tokens to complete the task, it was a worthy expense.

Final document version 3.0

Final version includes, but is not limited to:
Feature Matrix, Task Flow, Logic, Disruption Flows, Design Principles; scoped for Domestic Travel but to be built International Travel ready. The full plan is viewable online, but with restricted access. Contact me for access to the plan.

Was this a successful experiment?

Yes. I was able to successfully articulate and generate a plan based on my original outline and prompts.

What surprised me?

The speed at which Claude was able to produce the document and the patterns it used to represent the various sections. Additionally, the prompts and questions it asked me to further refine the document output.

What did I not expect?

I did not expect Claude to suggest optimizations or further ideas. Nor that one of the concept features was, to quote the Claude, “This is a genuinely novel mechanic — I haven't seen it done well in any travel app.”

What would I have done differently?

I am familiar with the common disruption flows that occur in the Post Booking and In Trip space; I might have included them in the initial outline. However, I was focused on the “Happy Path” handoff concept and scenarios; disruption is a different set use cases.