Side-by-Side Comparison
Aspect
Manual Audit
Buoy
Time
Hours to days
Seconds
Coverage
Sampling-based
100% of codebase
Frequency
Quarterly at best
Every PR
Accuracy
Human error prone
Consistent rules
Cost
High labor cost
Free CLI
Currency
Outdated immediately
Always current
Reproducibility
Depends on auditor
Identical every run
Trend Tracking
Manual comparison
Automatic over time
The Manual Audit Problem
📋 The Spreadsheet Approach
- • Someone spends 2-3 days reviewing code
- • Results go into a spreadsheet
- • Spreadsheet is outdated by the next PR
- • Nobody wants to do the next audit
- • Coverage is sampling, not complete
- • Different auditors find different things
âš“ The Buoy Approach
- • Run one command:
buoy drift check - • Get results in seconds
- • Runs automatically on every PR
- • 100% coverage, every time
- • Consistent rules, consistent results
- • Tracks trends over time automatically
When Manual Audits Still Make Sense
Manual audits aren't always wrong. They're valuable for:
- • UX reviews — Does the design feel right? Is the flow intuitive?
- • Accessibility testing — Screen reader testing, keyboard navigation
- • Design decisions — Should these be the same component?
Use Buoy for the mechanical checks (hardcoded values, duplicates, naming). Save manual time for the human judgment calls.