I like this view.Unless a spell were truly broken, I would not house rule a spell. I see no truly broken 5E spells from WotC, so I do not house rule any of them. Even if I did find one, I might look at approaches that fix it without changing the spell itself, but by changing the environment in which the spell is used.
I do, however, introduce alternate versions of spells that have different mechanics, but the same goals. Why? For the same reason we have Honda, Toyota, Ford, and all the other car brands: People want to put their own tweaks on a good idea, whether for their own benefit, for pride or to profit from it. Accordingly, I have a lot of different takes on a counterspell spell. One is an aura that counters all spells cast in it (using the mechanics for counterspell). One doesn't counter the spell, but lets the reacting mage change the target of the spell to another legal target. Another captures the magic of the spell being cast and let's the reactionary caster hold onto it and recast it themself at a later point in time (unless they lose concentration before they cast it). I even have two second level versions of a counterspell: One that reduces the range and radius/area of spells (forcing the caster to reselect the target/area), and another that gives the target of a spell advantage on saving throws against the spell, the caster disadvantage on attack rolls, etc...
Some of the spells with alternate versions have alternate introduced versions that are the same level as the original, but stronger. Others are more situationally stronger, but generally weaker. It is a mix - but having that wide breadth of magics makes my world a lot less 'cookie cutter' and feel more magical.
A multitude of spells and rituals and those presented in official books are the base reference.
it can produce a more dynamic and unpredictable world.