| name | build-vs-buy-vs-partner |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks "should we build this, acquire it, or partner for it," has a capability gap that needs a build/buy/partner decision, or wants that decision checked against the known failure pattern each path tends toward.
|
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
| metadata | {"version":"0.3.0","owner":"corporate-strategy practice","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"option-evaluation","permission_tier":"advisory","output_class":"draft-for-review","sourcing_policy":"volatile-facts-must-be-sourced"} |
Build vs. Buy vs. Partner
When to use
When a capability gap needs build/buy/partner framing — forces each path's known failure pattern into the conversation, not cost comparison alone.
What this skill does not do
- Does not close capability gaps without strategic relevance — question worth closing first.
- Does not re-derive synergy discipline — buy path defers to
synergy-stress-test.
- Does not pick path without naming failure pattern — recommendation includes mitigation.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|
| Capability gap stated precisely | Ask before evaluating paths |
| Strategic priority link | Question whether gap worth closing |
Provisional mode
Missing build track record: note haircut cannot be calibrated — [review].
Trust spine
- Strategic advice vs. support (mandatory): Compares paths with failure patterns; strategist owns choice.
- Escalation: No exit mechanism on partner path → flag; buy without synergy test → route to
synergy-stress-test.
Workflow
- State capability gap and strategic relevance.
- Core vs commodity test.
- Build: time/cost + overrun failure pattern + haircut from track record.
- Buy: headline terms + synergy handoff if live.
- Partner: structure + exit mechanism.
- Recommend with most likely failure pattern and mitigation.
Output format
CAPABILITY GAP: [...]
CORE OR COMMODITY: [...]
BUILD: [...] — Failure pattern risk: [...]
BUY: [...] — [synergy-stress-test if live]
PARTNER: [...] — Exit mechanism: [...]
RECOMMENDATION: [build | buy | partner] — [failure pattern + mitigation]
Worked example
Input: Need ML fraud model. Team has no ML delivery track record.
Excerpt: Commodity-adjacent capability; BUILD failure pattern high (overrun history); PARTNER exit mechanism missing — flag. Recommend partner with defined exit or buy [review].
Quality checks before delivering
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/corporate-strategy/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /corporate-strategy:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: synergy-stress-test, evaluate-strategic-option, or implementation planning.
