跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

regulatory-submission

Organize FDA or EMA regulatory submission materials into CTD Modules 1–5. Draft Module 2 summaries, check data integrity and ICH guideline alignment, identify gaps, and prepare dossier components such as cover letters and checklists.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Prepare FDA/EMA regulatory submissions (IND/NDA/BLA/510(k)/PMA/MAA) in CTD format. Generate module outlines (Modules 1-5), run ICH compliance checks (ALCOA+, E6 GCP, Q1-Q12), verify data integrity, and produce submission-ready dossiers with cover letters and checklists.

集成工具Google Cloud

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • FDA・EMA申請のCTD構成を整理したいとき
  • 申請資料の不足項目を洗い出したいとき
  • ICH指針とデータ完全性を点検したいとき
  • 申請書類の表紙文書やチェックリストを準備したいとき

包含的文件(3)

  • SKILL.md3.8 KB
  • eval_report_regulatory-submission_result.json6.3 KB
  • POLISH_CHANGELOG.md666 B

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Source: https://github.com/aipoch/medical-research-skills

Regulatory Submission — FDA/EMA Dossier Structure

When to Use

  • Preparing FDA/EMA regulatory submissions (IND/NDA/BLA/510(k)/PMA/MAA)
  • The user mentions regulatory submission, FDA, EMA, IND, NDA, BLA, CTD, dossier, or regulatory affairs
  • Generating CTD module outlines and compliance checks for dossier assembly

Workflow

  1. Identify submission type — Input: product type, development stage, market (US/EU) → Output: submission type (IND/NDA/BLA/510(k)/PMA/MAA)
  2. Generate CTD outline — Map to Modules 1-5 with required sections → Output: CTD table of contents
  3. Populate Module 2 — Draft Quality Overall Summary, Nonclinical/Clinical Overviews → Output: Module 2 drafts
  4. Verify data integrity — Check ALCOA+ compliance across all modules → Output: integrity audit report
  5. Run compliance check — Verify against ICH guidelines (E6 GCP, Q1-Q12) → ⛔ Checkpoint: Review gaps with user, prioritize remediation → Output: compliance gap list
  6. Finalize dossier — Compile modules, generate cover letters, verify cross-references → Output: submission-ready package

If Data Incomplete

  • Missing CTD sections → generate "[DATA REQUIRED]" placeholders with expected data sources
  • ICH compliance gaps → classify critical/major/minor with remediation timeline
  • Product type ambiguous → ask user to clarify drug vs. biologic vs. device

Submission Types

FDA

TypePurposeKey Sections
INDInvestigational New DrugChemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, clinical protocol
NDANew Drug ApplicationFull CMC, nonclinical, clinical data
BLABiologics LicenseManufacturing, characterization, clinical
510(k)Device clearanceSubstantial equivalence, performance testing
PMADevice approvalClinical data, manufacturing

EMA: CTA | MAA | Scientific Advice

CTD Format

  • Module 1: Administrative (cover letters, forms, labeling)
  • Module 2: Summaries (quality, nonclinical, clinical overviews)
  • Module 3: Quality/CMC (drug substance, product, manufacturing)
  • Module 4: Nonclinical (pharmacology, PK, toxicology)
  • Module 5: Clinical (study reports, literature)

Key Principles

  • Follow ICH guidelines (E6 GCP, Q1-Q12)
  • Data integrity: ALCOA+ (Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original, Accurate)
  • Risk-based approach: prioritize critical quality attributes

Error Handling

  • If required inputs are missing, state exactly which fields are missing and request only the minimum additional information.
  • If the task goes outside the documented scope, stop instead of guessing or silently widening the assignment.
  • If execution fails, report the failure point, summarize what can still be completed safely, and provide a manual fallback.
  • Do not fabricate files, citations, data, search results, or execution outcomes.

Input Validation

This skill accepts requests that match the documented purpose of regulatory-submission and include enough context to complete the workflow safely.

Do not continue the workflow when the request is out of scope, missing a critical input, or would require unsupported assumptions. Instead respond:

regulatory-submission only handles its documented workflow. Please provide the missing required inputs or switch to a more suitable skill.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Condense an academic paper into a structured abstract of up to 250 words, organized by background, objective, methods, results, and conclusion. It aims to retain key quantitative findings and supports papers from several research fields; figures and charts are not interpreted.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Creating a concise abstract from a research paper
  • Summarizing empirical studies while retaining key statistics
  • Preparing structured summaries across multiple papers
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

Trim English academic abstracts to a target word count while preserving key findings, statistics, and the background-to-conclusion structure. Choose conservative, balanced, or aggressive compression, check word counts, and review the edited text for readability and accuracy.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Cutting an abstract to meet a journal word limit
  • Preparing a conference abstract with a strict word count
  • Checking an abstract's word count before submission
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

Refines long medical drafts, reports, or literature notes into formal, single-paragraph Chinese and English abstracts in an SCI journal style. It can place both abstracts in a Markdown report while keeping claims grounded in the source text.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Condensing a medical study report into bilingual abstracts
  • Preparing unstructured abstracts from literature notes
  • Creating a Markdown report with Chinese and English abstracts
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

Generates submission-ready Elsevier/SCI Highlights from manuscript text or extracted PDF/DOCX/TXT content. Use when a user needs 3-5 concise, evidence-grounded highlight bullets for a research paper, review, meta-analysis, case report, or bioinformatics manuscript.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

Design comparative drug safety studies using FAERS, the FDA’s adverse event reporting database, within one defined safety area. The plan compares drugs or classes, lays out workload options and analysis steps, and distinguishes detected signals from conclusions the data cannot support.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing drug classes within one adverse event area
  • Planning a FAERS study with active comparators
  • Adding declared subgroup or onset characterization
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

Predicts absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion properties for small molecules from their structures. Use the results to compare compounds, screen libraries, and review drug-likeness scores in structured outputs. Predictions support prioritization and need experimental validation.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Compare predicted ADME profiles for small-molecule candidates
  • Screen a compound library for drug-likeness
  • Rank candidates against target property ranges
aipoch/medical-research-skills19802026年9月17日 更新

查看 aipoch 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题