本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

prepare-inspection-readiness

Prepare an organisation for regulatory inspection by assessing readiness against agency-specific focus areas (FDA, EMA, MHRA). Covers warning letter and 483 theme analysis, mock inspection protocols, document bundle preparation, inspection logistics, and response template creation. Use when a regulatory inspection has been announced or is anticipated, when a periodic self-assessment is due, when new systems have been implemented since the last inspection, or after a significant audit finding that may attract regulatory attention.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md13.2 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。

Prepare Inspection Readiness

Assess and improve organisational readiness for regulatory inspection, covering documentation, personnel preparation, logistics, and response planning.

When to Use

  • A regulatory inspection has been announced or is anticipated
  • Periodic self-assessment of inspection readiness is due
  • New systems or processes have been implemented since the last inspection
  • Industry trends (warning letters, 483s) indicate an emerging focus area
  • After a significant audit finding that may attract regulatory attention

Inputs

  • Required: Inspecting authority (FDA, EMA, MHRA, or other)
  • Required: Expected inspection scope (data integrity, CSV, GMP, GLP, GCP)
  • Required: Compliance architecture and system inventory
  • Optional: Previous inspection reports and observations
  • Optional: Recent industry warning letters and 483 themes
  • Optional: Open CAPAs and audit findings

Procedure

Step 1: Analyse Agency-Specific Focus Areas

Research the inspecting authority's current priorities:

# Inspection Focus Area Analysis
## Document ID: IFA-[SITE]-[YYYY]-[NNN]

### FDA Current Focus Areas
| Focus Area | Regulatory Basis | Recent 483 Trends | Risk to This Site |
|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| Data integrity | 21 CFR Part 11, CGMP | #1 cited observation in drug 483s since 2016 | [H/M/L] |
| Audit trail | 21 CFR 11.10(e) | Disabled/incomplete audit trails | [H/M/L] |
| Electronic signatures | 21 CFR 11.50-11.300 | Missing manifestation, shared accounts | [H/M/L] |
| Computer system validation | GAMP 5, FDA guidance | Inadequate validation of Category 4/5 systems | [H/M/L] |
| Change control | ICH Q10 | Undocumented or retrospective changes | [H/M/L] |
| Laboratory controls | 21 CFR 211.160-211.176 | OOS investigation, test repetition | [H/M/L] |

### EMA/MHRA-Specific Considerations
| Area | EU Annex 11 Reference | Focus | Risk to This Site |
|------|----------------------|-------|-------------------|
| Computerized system validation | §4, §5 | Risk-based validation, supplier assessment | [H/M/L] |
| Operational phase | §6-§13 | Security, audit trail, backup, business continuity | [H/M/L] |
| Cloud and outsourced systems | §3.4 | Service level agreements, data sovereignty | [H/M/L] |
| Data governance | MHRA DI guidance | ALCOA+, culture of integrity | [H/M/L] |

Expected: A risk-rated analysis of inspection focus areas specific to the inspecting authority. On failure: If recent 483/warning letter data is unavailable, consult the FDA warning letter database, EMA inspection reports, or industry publications for the most current trends.

Step 2: Conduct Readiness Self-Assessment

Evaluate the site against each focus area:

# Inspection Readiness Assessment
## Document ID: IRA-[SITE]-[YYYY]-[NNN]

### Readiness Scoring
| Focus Area | Weight | Current State | Score (1-5) | Gap | Remediation Priority |
|-----------|--------|--------------|-------------|-----|---------------------|
| Data integrity controls | High | [Description of current state] | [1-5] | [Gap description] | [Critical/High/Medium/Low] |
| Validation documentation | High | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| Audit trail compliance | High | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| Electronic signatures | Medium | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| Change control | Medium | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| Training records | Medium | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| SOPs (current, approved) | Medium | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| CAPA management | Medium | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| Vendor qualification | Low | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |
| Periodic review | Low | [Description] | [1-5] | [Gap] | [Priority] |

Score: 1 = Critical gaps, 5 = Fully compliant
Overall readiness score: [Sum / Max] = [X]%

### Remediation Plan
| Gap ID | Description | Owner | Action | Deadline | Status |
|--------|------------|-------|--------|----------|--------|
| GAP-001 | [Gap] | [Name] | [Remediation action] | [Date] | [Open/In Progress/Closed] |

Expected: A quantified readiness assessment with prioritised remediation actions. On failure: If overall readiness is below 70%, consider requesting an inspection delay (if permitted) and implementing emergency remediation.

Step 3: Prepare Document Bundles

Organise documentation into inspection-ready packages:

# Inspection Document Bundles

### Bundle 1: Validation Pack (per system)
- [ ] Current validation status summary (one-page per system)
- [ ] User Requirements Specification (URS)
- [ ] Risk Assessment
- [ ] Validation Plan
- [ ] IQ Protocol and Report
- [ ] OQ Protocol and Report
- [ ] PQ Protocol and Report (if applicable)
- [ ] Traceability Matrix
- [ ] Validation Summary Report
- [ ] Periodic review records
- [ ] Change control history since last validation

### Bundle 2: Data Integrity Evidence
- [ ] Data integrity policy and programme
- [ ] ALCOA+ assessment results
- [ ] Audit trail review records (last 12 months)
- [ ] Data integrity monitoring metrics and trends
- [ ] Data integrity training records

### Bundle 3: Operational Evidence
- [ ] Current SOPs (master list with effective dates)
- [ ] Training matrix (all GxP personnel)
- [ ] Change control log (last 24 months)
- [ ] Deviation/incident log (last 24 months)
- [ ] CAPA log with closure status
- [ ] Internal audit reports and CAPA follow-up

### Bundle 4: System Configuration Evidence
- [ ] User access list (current active users with roles)
- [ ] System configuration documentation
- [ ] Backup and recovery test records
- [ ] Security patch log
- [ ] Business continuity/disaster recovery plan

Expected: All bundles are assembled, indexed, and accessible within 30 minutes of an inspector's request. On failure: If documents are missing or incomplete, create a gap list, prioritise remediation, and document the plan. Inspectors notice disorganisation.

Step 4: Design Mock Inspection Protocol

# Mock Inspection Protocol
## Document ID: MIP-[SITE]-[YYYY]-[NNN]

### Scope
- **Focus areas:** [Top 3-5 risk areas from readiness assessment]
- **Systems in scope:** [Systems likely to be inspected]
- **Duration:** [1-2 days]

### Participants
| Role | Name | Mock Inspection Role |
|------|------|---------------------|
| Mock inspector | [Experienced QA or external consultant] | Ask questions, request documents |
| System owner(s) | [Names] | Respond to questions, demonstrate systems |
| QA | [Name] | Observe, note findings |
| Back room coordinator | [Name] | Locate and provide documents |

### Mock Inspection Scenarios
| Scenario | Focus | Inspector Might Ask |
|----------|-------|-------------------|
| 1: Show me the audit trail | Data integrity | "Show me the audit trail for batch record BR-2025-1234" |
| 2: Walk me through a change | Change control | "Show me the change control for the last system upgrade" |
| 3: Show training records | Training | "Show me the training records for user [Name] on system [X]" |
| 4: Explain your validation | CSV | "Walk me through how you validated this system" |
| 5: Show a deviation | CAPA | "Show me your last critical deviation and its CAPA" |
| 6: User access review | Access control | "Show me how you manage user access when people leave" |

### Post-Mock Assessment
| Scenario | Outcome | Findings | Actions |
|----------|---------|----------|---------|
| [#] | [Satisfactory/Needs Work] | [Description] | [Remediation if needed] |

Expected: Mock inspection reveals issues before the real inspection does. On failure: If mock inspection reveals critical gaps, treat them as critical findings with the same urgency as real inspection observations.

Step 5: Plan Inspection Logistics

# Inspection Logistics Plan

### Room Setup
| Room | Purpose | Equipment | Assigned To |
|------|---------|-----------|-------------|
| Front room | Inspector workspace | Table, chairs, network access, printer | Facility manager |
| Back room | Document retrieval and strategy | Copier, network access, phone | QA team |
| Demo room | System demonstrations | Workstation with system access | IT support |

### Roles During Inspection
| Role | Person | Responsibilities |
|------|--------|-----------------|
| Inspection coordinator | [Name] | Single point of contact with inspector, schedule management |
| Subject matter experts | [Names] | Answer technical questions in their domain |
| Back room lead | [Name] | Coordinate document retrieval, track requests |
| Scribe | [Name] | Document all questions, requests, and responses |
| Executive sponsor | [Name] | Available for escalation, opening/closing meetings |

### Communication Protocol
- All document requests flow through the back room lead
- No documents provided without QA review
- Questions requiring research get a "we will get back to you" response (track and follow up)
- Daily debrief with inspection team after each day

Expected: Logistics plan ensures a professional, organised response to the inspection. On failure: If key personnel are unavailable on the inspection date, identify and brief alternates.

Step 6: Create Response Templates

# Inspection Response Templates

### Template 1: 483 Observation Response
[Date]
[FDA District Office Address]

Re: FDA Form 483 Observations — [Inspection Dates] — [Facility Name]

Dear [Inspector Name],

We appreciate the opportunity to address the observations identified during the inspection of [facility] on [dates].

**Observation [N]:** [Quote the exact observation text]

**Response:**
- **Root Cause:** [Brief root cause description]
- **Immediate Corrective Action:** [What was done immediately]
  - Completed: [Date]
- **Long-term Corrective Action:** [Systemic fix]
  - Target completion: [Date]
- **Preventive Action:** [How recurrence will be prevented]
  - Target completion: [Date]
- **Effectiveness Verification:** [How effectiveness will be measured]
  - Target verification date: [Date]

### Template 2: Immediate Correction During Inspection
When an inspector identifies an issue that can be corrected immediately:
1. Acknowledge the observation
2. Implement the correction (if feasible)
3. Document the correction with before/after evidence
4. Inform the inspector that the correction has been made
5. Include in the formal response as "corrected during inspection"

Expected: Response templates enable rapid, structured replies to inspection observations. On failure: If response templates are generic and do not address the specific observation, customise each response with specific evidence and timelines.

Validation

  • Agency-specific focus areas analysed with risk ratings
  • Readiness self-assessment completed with quantified scores
  • Remediation plan created for all gaps with owners and deadlines
  • Document bundles assembled and indexed for all in-scope systems
  • Mock inspection conducted with documented findings and follow-up
  • Inspection logistics plan defines rooms, roles, and communication protocol
  • Response templates prepared for common observation types
  • All critical remediation items closed before the inspection date

Common Pitfalls

  • Last-minute preparation: Inspection readiness is a continuous programme, not a cramming exercise. Organisations that scramble produce disorganised, incomplete responses.
  • Hiding problems: Inspectors are experienced professionals who detect concealment. Transparency with a clear remediation plan is always better than attempted concealment.
  • Over-volunteering information: Answer the question that was asked. Providing unsolicited information can open new lines of inquiry.
  • Untrained personnel: Subject matter experts who have never practiced responding to inspector questions perform poorly. Mock inspections are essential practice.
  • Ignoring the back room: The back room (document retrieval and strategy coordination) is as important as the front room. Poor document retrieval creates the impression of disorganisation.

Related Skills

  • design-compliance-architecture — the foundation document inspectors will want to see
  • conduct-gxp-audit — internal audits should mimic inspection methodology
  • monitor-data-integrity — data integrity is the top FDA inspection focus area
  • investigate-capa-root-cause — CAPAs must be thoroughly investigated before inspection
  • qualify-vendor — vendor qualifications are frequently requested during inspections

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

Execute structural metamorphosis using strangler fig migration, chrysalis phases, and interface preservation. Covers transformation planning, parallel running, progressive cutover, rollback design, and post-metamorphosis stabilization for system architecture evolution. Use when assess-form has classified the system as READY for transformation, when migrating from monolith to microservices, when replacing a core subsystem while dependents continue operating, or when any architectural change must be gradual rather than big-bang.

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。

pjt222/agent-almanac372026年10月12日 更新

adaptic

無料

Master skill composing the 5-step synoptic cycle for panoramic synthesis across multiple domains. Orchestrates meditate, expand-awareness, observe, awareness, integrate-gestalt, and express-insight into a coherent process that produces unified understanding rather than sequential compromise. Use when a problem genuinely spans 3+ domains and the interactions between domains matter more than depth in any one, when sequential analysis feels like compromise rather than integration, or before major architectural decisions affecting multiple stakeholders.

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。

pjt222/agent-almanac372026年10月12日 更新

Scaffold a new puzzle type across all 10+ pipeline integration points in jigsawR. Creates the core puzzle module, wires it into the unified pipeline (generation, positioning, rendering, adjacency), adds ggpuzzle geom/stat layers, updates DESCRIPTION and config.yml, extends the Shiny app, and creates a comprehensive test suite. Use when adding a completely new puzzle type to the package or following the 10-point integration checklist to ensure nothing is missed end-to-end.

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。

pjt222/agent-almanac372026年10月12日 更新

Add Rcpp or RcppArmadillo integration to an R package for high-performance C++ code. Covers setup, writing C++ functions, RcppExports generation, testing compiled code, and debugging. Use when an R function is too slow and profiling confirms a bottleneck, when you need to interface with existing C/C++ libraries, or when implementing algorithms (loops, recursion, linear algebra) that benefit from compiled code.

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。

pjt222/agent-almanac372026年10月12日 更新

aikido

無料

Practice aikido as a defensive martial art emphasizing harmony, redirection, and controlled resolution. Covers centering and grounding, ukemi (safe falling and rolling), core techniques (irimi-nage, shiho-nage, kote-gaeshi, ikkyo), blending and tai sabaki (body movement), randori (multiple attacker practice), weapons awareness, and applying principles off the mat. Use when learning a defensive martial art that prioritizes de-escalation, developing the ability to redirect aggression without causing unnecessary harm, building safe falling skills, or cultivating calm centeredness under physical pressure.

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。

pjt222/agent-almanac372026年10月12日 更新

Analyze an arbitrary codebase to identify functions, APIs, and data sources suitable for exposure as MCP tools, producing a tool specification document. Use when planning an MCP server for an existing project, auditing a codebase before wrapping it as an AI-accessible tool surface, comparing what a codebase can do versus what is already exposed via MCP, or generating a tool spec to hand off to scaffold-mcp-server.

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。

pjt222/agent-almanac372026年10月12日 更新

pjt222 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する