Buy Vs Build Review
Use when reviewing a code diff, pull request, or local changes for buy-vs-build mistakes, avoidable custom code, unnecessary dependencies, missed built-ins, missed platform features, or weak decision notes.
Install
$ agentstack add skill-stdin-buy-vs-build-buy-vs-build-review ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ● Network access Used
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Links to your public security report.[](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-stdin-buy-vs-build-buy-vs-build-review) Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Buy vs Build Review
Review the diff for ownership choices, not just correctness. Prefer findings that reduce risk, code, dependencies, or vendor lock-in without weakening safety.
Workflow
- Inspect changed files and dependency manifests.
- Flag custom code that a built-in, native platform feature, already-installed dependency, mature open source package, or commercial service should replace.
- Flag new dependencies or services that duplicate built-ins, installed packages, or tiny clear code.
- Check that the choice was implemented well, not just chosen well. The right rung integrated badly is still a finding: a wrapper that re-does the work the dependency already does, an SSE/WebSocket/queue added without handling its real failure modes (reconnect, retry, backpressure, idempotency), or a "reuse" that grew more glue code than it removed. Confirm the change actually cut code, failure modes, and operating burden.
- Preserve safety boundaries: validation, security, privacy, accessibility, observability, and explicit requirements.
- Judge the decision note as the reviewable artifact. Where the diff makes a non-obvious or hard-to-reverse choice, the note (in the PR body or a
docs/decisions/ADR) should name the distinguishing requirement, the rejected option, and a revisit trigger. A missing or vague note is itself a finding — it is often the most valuable thing in the change, because it is what makes the tradeoff reviewable later. - Report findings first, ordered by severity, with file references when possible.
Output
Use this shape:
Findings
- [severity] file:line - Issue. Better option: . Tradeoff: .
Integration
- [severity] file:line - Right option, but: .
Decision gaps
- Missing or vague decision note for — name the distinguishing requirement, rejected option, and revisit trigger.If there are no issues, say so and list any residual dependency or ownership risks.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: stdin
- Source: stdin/buy-vs-build
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.