本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

fda-qsr-audit-prep

/cs:fda-qsr-audit-prep <scope> — FDA 21 CFR 820 (QSR / QMSR) audit 6-question forcing interrogation. Post-Feb 2026 substantially harmonized with ISO 13485. Use before annual internal QSR audit, pre-FDA-inspection readiness, or Form 483 response.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

/cs:fda-qsr-audit-prep — FDA QSR Forcing Questions

Command: /cs:fda-qsr-audit-prep <scope>

The FDA QSR auditor pressure-tests any US medical-device QSR work. Six questions before any internal audit, FDA inspection, Form 483 response, or recall decision.

When to Run

  • Before annual internal QSR audit
  • Before pre-FDA-inspection readiness review (any device commercially distributed in US)
  • After receiving Form 483 observations
  • After Warning Letter receipt
  • After MDR-reportable event
  • Before recall decision (voluntary vs FDA-initiated)
  • Before submitting 510(k) / PMA (where QSR posture affects approval timeline)

The Six QSR Questions

1. Show me the complaint files from the last quarter — and the corresponding MDR reports.

21 CFR 820.198 + 21 CFR 803 — most-cited FDA inspection area.

  • Complaint log complete: who / what / when / device / batch
  • Investigation closure within reasonable timeline
  • MDR-reporting decision tree applied: death OR serious injury OR malfunction-that-could-cause = MDR
  • 30-day timeline for most MDR reports; 5 days for certain serious events
  • Complaint trending input to management review

2. When was process validation (IQ/OQ/PQ) last revalidated per 21 CFR 820.75?

Cross-walks ISO 13485 Clause 7.5.6 (substantially harmonized post-Feb 2026).

  • Initial validation at process introduction
  • Revalidation triggers: process / equipment / material change OR periodic schedule
  • Statistical techniques per 21 CFR 820.250 where applicable
  • Cross-check with cs-cqm-iso13485 for ISO 13485 alignment

3. Show me the DHRs for products commercially distributed in last 2 years.

21 CFR 820.180 — 2-year retention from commercial distribution; check sampling for completeness.

  • Device History Record (DHR) for each unit/lot/batch
  • Must include: dates of manufacture, quantity manufactured, quantity released, acceptance records, primary identification label, device identification, control number
  • Sample stratified by product class
  • Verify DHR closeness to DHF (design history file)

4. Show me CAPAs from the last 6 months with effectiveness verification.

21 CFR 820.100 = ISO 13485 8.5.2 substantially harmonized.

  • Root cause analysis depth (5 Why minimum)
  • Effectiveness verification = measurable evidence, not "we updated the procedure"
  • Containment / correction / corrective action distinction documented
  • Closure approval by appropriate authority
  • Aging CAPAs > 90 days flagged

5. Show me labeling (21 CFR 801) review for the most recent product launch.

FDA-specific overlay not in ISO 13485.

  • Labeling per 21 CFR 801 requirements
  • For specific device types: also 21 CFR 800 series sectoral overlays
  • UDI (Unique Device Identification) per 21 CFR 830
  • Promotional materials reviewed for accuracy + non-misleading

6. If a Form 483 was issued in the last 3 years, show me the closure status.

Form 483 = FDA observation; not equivalent to ISO nonconformity.

  • Response within 15 working days
  • Each observation has documented corrective + preventive action with timeline
  • Effectiveness verification evidence
  • For Warning Letters: separate response track + potentially FDA meeting

Workflow

# 1. QSR compliance posture
python ra-qm-team/skills/fda-consultant-specialist/scripts/qsr_compliance_checker.py compliance_state.json

# 2. FDA submission tracking (510(k) / PMA / IDE)
python ra-qm-team/skills/fda-consultant-specialist/scripts/fda_submission_tracker.py submissions.json

# 3. HIPAA overlap (if connected device handles PHI)
python ra-qm-team/skills/fda-consultant-specialist/scripts/hipaa_risk_assessment.py phi_inventory.json

# 4. Mock FDA inspection
python ../../skills/compliance-os/scripts/audit_simulator.py fda_qsr_scope.json

Output Format

# FDA QSR Audit Prep: <scope>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## The Decision Being Made
[programme-plan | inspection-readiness | 483-response | MDR-decision | recall]

## Complaint + MDR Posture
- Complaints last quarter: N
- MDR-reportable events: M
- MDR reports filed within timeline: % (target 100%)
- Complaint trending review at management level: yes/no

## Process Validation Status (21 CFR 820.75)
- Validations on schedule: %
- Stale validations: <list>
- Statistical techniques applied: yes/no per process

## DHR Completeness (21 CFR 820.180)
- DHRs sampled: N
- Completeness rate: %
- 2-year retention compliant: yes/no
- Stratified by product class: yes/no

## CAPA Health (21 CFR 820.100)
- CAPAs sampled: N
- Root cause analysis depth: adequate/inadequate
- Effectiveness verification: complete/incomplete
- Aging CAPAs > 90 days: N

## Labeling (21 CFR 801)
- Recent products reviewed: <list>
- Labeling accurate + non-misleading: yes/no
- UDI compliance per 21 CFR 830: yes/no

## Form 483 / Warning Letter History
- Form 483s last 3 years: N (each: closed/in-progress)
- Warning Letters last 5 years: N (each: closed/in-progress)
- Pattern across observations: <thematic>

## ISO 13485 Cross-Walk (post-Feb 2026 harmonization)
- ISO 13485 audit findings: <link to cs-cqm-iso13485 output>
- FDA-specific overlays remaining: labeling + complaint handling + MDR reporting + recall procedures
- Cross-framework reuse: % of evidence shared

## Verdict
🟢 INSPECTION-READY | 🟡 GAPS-IDENTIFIED | 🔴 NOT-READY

## Top 3 Actions
[3 concrete next steps with owner + FDA-cited timeline (15 days / 30 days / etc.)]

## Outside Counsel Required
[For Warning Letter response, recall decisions, or 510(k) / PMA strategy disputes]

Routing

  • /cs:compliance-readiness — for multi-framework view
  • /cs:iso13485-audit-prep — for ISO 13485 cross-walk pair (substantially harmonized)
  • /cs:gdpr-audit-prep — if connected device handles personal data
  • /cs:gc-review — for Warning Letter response coordination

Related


Version: 1.0.0

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Accessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

aeo

無料

Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

alirezarezvani のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する