본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

iso13485-audit-prep

Prepares medical device quality systems for ISO 13485 audits using six focused questions. Reviews design records, corrective actions, process validation, risk files, post-market monitoring, and management reviews, then summarizes readiness gaps and three priority actions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

/compliance-os:iso13485-audit-prep [scope] — ISO 13485 QMS audit 6-question forcing interrogation. Design controls + CAPA + post-market focused. Use before Clause 8.2.4 internal audit, MDR / FDA QSR alignment review, or product-launch DHF closure audit.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Check readiness before an ISO 13485 internal audit
  • Review design history files before a product launch
  • Check evidence that corrective actions were effective
  • Find evidence gaps for MDR and FDA QSR alignment reviews

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md6.7 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

/compliance-os:iso13485-audit-prep — ISO 13485 QMS Forcing Questions

Command: /compliance-os:iso13485-audit-prep <scope>

The ISO 13485 QMS auditor pressure-tests any medical-device QMS work. Six traceability-obsessed questions before any internal audit, MDR / FDA QSR review, or product launch.

When to Run

  • Before annual Clause 8.2.4 internal audit
  • Before MDR / FDA QSR alignment review (substantially harmonized post Feb 2026)
  • Before new-device commercial launch (DHF closure audit)
  • After significant CAPA closure event (effectiveness verification audit)
  • Post-recall event (root cause + corrective action audit)
  • Quarterly during regulatory submission preparation

The Six QMS Questions

1. Pull three random DHFs. Are design verification + validation evidence complete?

Most-cited finding area.

  • DHF must include: design plan + inputs + outputs + verification + validation + transfer + changes
  • Sample stratified by product class (I, IIa, IIb, III per MDR)
  • Reference iso13485_audit_playbook.md for the per-DHF checklist
  • Verify traceability matrix from user needs through clinical evidence

2. Show me the last 5 CAPAs with effectiveness verification evidence.

Second-most-cited finding area.

  • Containment / correction / corrective action distinction documented
  • Root cause analysis depth: 5 Why minimum
  • Effectiveness verification = measurable evidence, not "we updated the procedure"
  • Closure approved by appropriate authority
  • Repeat CAPAs across products = systemic issue trigger

3. When was process validation (IQ/OQ/PQ) last revalidated?

Clause 7.5.6 — often stale.

  • Initial validation at process introduction
  • Revalidation triggers: process change, equipment change, material change, periodic schedule
  • Trend monitoring (SPC) where statistical techniques apply per Clause 8.4
  • Cross-check with cs-fda-qsr-auditor for 21 CFR 820.75 alignment

4. Show me the risk management file for the highest-risk product.

Clause 7.1 + ISO 14971:2019.

  • Risk management plan exists per product
  • Hazard identification covers reasonable foreseeable misuse
  • Risk control hierarchy applied: inherent safety > protective measures > information for safety
  • Residual risk evaluated + accepted with rationale
  • Post-production information feeds back into RMF
  • For AI-enabled medical devices: layer ISO 42001 A.5 impact assessment on top

5. Show me post-market surveillance evidence — last 6 months.

Clause 8.2.1 — high-stakes for MDR + FDA.

  • Customer complaint log + investigation closure
  • Vigilance reports (serious incident / FSCA) submitted per applicable regulation
  • Trend analysis evidence + management review input
  • Post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) for MDR high-risk devices
  • MDR reports per 21 CFR 803 for US-marketed devices (cross-check with cs-fda-qsr-auditor)

6. Where's the management review evidence covering all Clause 5.6 inputs?

Annual minimum; semi-annual for mature programs.

  • Required inputs per Clause 5.6.2: audit results, customer feedback, process performance, product conformity, status of preventive + corrective actions, follow-up from prior reviews, changes that could affect QMS, recommendations for improvement, regulatory requirements
  • Outputs per Clause 5.6.3: improvement decisions, product requirement changes, resource needs
  • Integrated review across frameworks (per multi_framework_audit_playbook.md) preferred

Workflow

# 1. Audit programme optimization
python ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/qms-audit-expert/scripts/audit_schedule_optimizer.py audit_scope.json

# 2. Mock audit for readiness check
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/audit_simulator.py iso13485_scope.json

# 3. CAPA system review
# Route to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/capa-officer/ tools

# 4. Risk management file review
# Route to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/vendor/ra-qm-team/risk-management-specialist/ tools

Output Format

# ISO 13485 Audit Prep: <scope>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## The Decision Being Made
[programme-plan | DHF-closure | CAPA-health | post-market-trend | pre-cert | MDR-FDA-alignment]

## Design Control Status (sampled DHFs)
- DHFs sampled: <list product IDs>
- Verification evidence: pass/fail per DHF
- Validation evidence: pass/fail per DHF
- Clinical evidence (per MDR Annex XIV / FDA 510(k)): pass/fail
- Traceability matrix complete: yes/no per DHF

## CAPA Health
- CAPAs sampled: N
- Root cause analysis depth: adequate/inadequate per CAPA
- Effectiveness verification: complete/incomplete per CAPA
- Aging CAPAs > 90 days: N
- Repeat issues across products: <list>

## Process Validation Status
- Validations on schedule: %
- Stale validations (> 12 months since revalidation): <list>
- Statistical techniques applied per Clause 8.4: yes/no

## Risk Management File Status
- Sampled product RMFs: <list>
- Post-production updates in last 12 months: <count per product>
- Residual risk acceptance signed: yes/no

## Post-Market Surveillance
- Complaint trending: stable/rising
- MDR / vigilance reports filed timely: %
- PMCF on schedule (where required): yes/no

## Management Review Status
- Last review date: YYYY-MM-DD
- Required Clause 5.6.2 inputs present: yes/no
- Open action items past due: N

## Cross-Framework Impact
- EU MDR alignment: clean / gaps in <list>
- FDA QSR alignment (post-Feb 2026): substantially harmonized; FDA-specific overlays per cs-fda-qsr-auditor
- ISO 42001 AIMS overlay (if AI-enabled device): pass/fail per Annex A

## Verdict
🟢 READY | 🟡 CLOSE-DHF-GAPS-FIRST | 🔴 NOT-READY

## Top 3 Actions
[3 concrete next steps with owner + corrective-action timeline]

Routing

  • /compliance-os:compliance-readiness — for multi-framework view
  • /compliance-os:fda-qsr-audit-prep — for FDA-specific overlay
  • /compliance-os:aims-audit — for AI-enabled medical device ISO 42001 layer
  • /compliance-os:gdpr-audit-prep — for personal-data overlap (clinical data, customer data)
  • /c-level-agents:cpo-review — for executive product strategy decisions
  • /c-level-agents:decide — to log the verdict

Related


Version: 1.0.0

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Audit web applications for accessibility issues against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, the web accessibility standards. Get framework-specific code fixes, contrast checks, verification steps, and reports, with options for automated checks in development pipelines.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Audit a web application before release
  • Fix contrast and keyboard navigation issues
  • Prepare accessibility reports for stakeholders
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Plan A/B tests that compare page variations, from headlines to pricing layouts. Define a hypothesis, choose success metrics, calculate sample size and duration, and prepare launch checks and results reports to support decisions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Comparing landing page headlines
  • Testing signup button changes
  • Planning pricing page experiments
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Create paid ad headlines and body copy tailored to each platform's character limits. Use existing performance data to develop variations, explore new messaging angles, and check copy for length, quality, and potential rejection risks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Creating Google RSA headlines
  • Writing Meta and LinkedIn ad copy
  • Developing variations of successful ads
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Reviewing a pull request before merging
  • Getting a second opinion on AI-written code
  • Checking authentication or data access code
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

aeo

무료

Audit and improve content intended for citation in AI answers. Review evidence, author information, and structure, generate revised content and structured metadata, and keep a local record of observed citations across AI services.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Audit existing articles for evidence and credibility gaps
  • Revise article structure and references for AI answers
  • Record citations observed across AI services
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

Create signed records for consequential agent actions such as deployments, deletions, and payments. Decide which actions need evidence, record the agent, action, target, and policy, then verify the resulting certificate offline to detect later changes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Creating signed records for production deployments
  • Preserving evidence of deletions and payments
  • Recording access grants for later review
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9만2026년 10월 21일 업데이트

alirezarezvani의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고