Code Refine

---
# GENERATED METADATA — edit harness-manifest.json, then run tools/generate.py.
name: code-refine
description: "Use only when autopilot-code dispatches plan revision after user notes, plan-check feedback, or verification failure. Not for top-level user requests or primary capability routing."
argument-hint: "<plan name or path> [--intensity direct|quick|standard|strong|thorough|adversarial]"
metadata:
  group: sub
  fam: sub
  invocation_class: parent-invoked
  modes: []
  blurb: "Revise an existing plan using user notes, plan-check feedback, and verification-failure notes."
  use_when: "Use only when autopilot-code dispatches plan revision after user notes, plan-check feedback, or verification failure."
  not_for: "Not for top-level user requests or primary capability routing."
---

# code-refine

> **Plan resolution**: Treat [arguments-and-decisions.md#plan-resolution](../autopilot-code/references/arguments-and-decisions.md) as the single authority for resolving `$ARGUMENTS`. Recognize both canonical `plan.md` and any existing companion such as legacy `plan_ko.md`; swap between known companion paths only when both files actually belong to the same plan.

> **Language rule**: Follow the audience and artifact language contract in [arguments-and-decisions.md#language-rule](../autopilot-code/references/arguments-and-decisions.md). Preserve the canonical plan's selected language and synchronize only companions that already exist or are explicitly required.

## Delegate Refinement

Re-enter the `plan/plan-author` unit boundary with this task:

```text
Refine mode. Update an existing implementation plan from user memos, plan-check feedback, or verification-failure notes.

Supplied plan: {$ARGUMENTS}
Canonical plan: {resolved plan.md path}
Existing companion plans: {resolved paths, or none}

Read the supplied and canonical plan files and identify user memos per your refine-mode memo forms; additionally treat any HTML comment as a user memo. Do not treat original plan prose as a memo. Then follow your refine-mode procedure and return format.
```

Memo forms, in-place update, companion synchronization, and the single-line return contract are owned by the `plan/plan-author` unit persona; do not restate them in the prompt.

## Refine Assurance

Derive verification rigor from the plan's selected `--intensity` context under [CONVENTIONS §1.1](../../core/CONVENTIONS.md#11-verification-rigor-tiers). This capability is an optional correction of a durable plan; it is not an automatic stage in `direct` or `quick`.

| Rigor | Review after refinement | Correction budget |
|---|---|---|
| `quick` | Direct invocation only: one fast sanity review or self-check | Record residual concerns; no repeated loop |
| `light` | One focused fast review when changed steps could affect execution | One bounded correction for blocking issues |
| `standard` | One lightweight `qa/plan-review` unit pass (the `plan-check` boundary) over changed steps | At most one correction |
| `thorough` | Multi-axis review only when selected by `intensity=thorough` | Up to two synthesized corrections |
| `adversarial` | Thorough review plus explicit failure-mode, security, and adversarial critique when available | Explicit unavailable requests fail loudly; automatic escalation falls back to thorough and reports it |

After the `plan/plan-author` unit returns, run only the review action selected by the caller's graph. Do not open a repeated QA loop merely because the rigor tier is high. Add unresolved concerns to the plan's risk or unresolved section after the selected budget and report them to the caller.

## Task

Refine the plan at: $ARGUMENTS