fda-consultant-specialist

$npx mdskill add alirezarezvani/claude-skills/fda-consultant-specialist

Provides FDA regulatory guidance for medical device companies

  • Advises on 510(k), PMA, and De Novo submission pathways
  • References FDA regulations, ISO 13485, and HIPAA standards
  • Analyzes device classification, predicate status, and cybersecurity risks
  • Delivers actionable compliance and submission strategies

SKILL.md

.github/skills/fda-consultant-specialistView on GitHub ↗
---
name: "fda-consultant-specialist"
description: FDA regulatory consultant for medical device companies. Provides 510(k)/PMA/De Novo pathway guidance, QMSR (21 CFR 820, which incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference since 2026-02-02; formerly QSR) compliance, HIPAA assessments, and device cybersecurity. Use when user mentions FDA submission, 510(k), PMA, De Novo, QMSR, QSR, ISO 13485 for FDA, premarket, predicate device, substantial equivalence, HIPAA medical device, or FDA cybersecurity.
---

# FDA Consultant Specialist

FDA regulatory consulting for medical device manufacturers covering submission pathways, the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR, 21 CFR Part 820 — formerly the QSR), HIPAA compliance, and device cybersecurity requirements.

## Table of Contents

- [FDA Pathway Selection](#fda-pathway-selection)
- [510(k) Submission Process](#510k-submission-process)
- [QMSR Compliance (formerly QSR)](#qmsr-compliance-formerly-qsr)
- [HIPAA for Medical Devices](#hipaa-for-medical-devices)
- [Device Cybersecurity](#device-cybersecurity)
- [Resources](#resources)

---

## FDA Pathway Selection

Determine the appropriate FDA regulatory pathway based on device classification and predicate availability.

### Decision Framework

```
Predicate device exists?
├── YES → Substantially equivalent?
│   ├── YES → 510(k) Pathway
│   │   ├── No design changes → Abbreviated 510(k)
│   │   ├── Manufacturing only → Special 510(k)
│   │   └── Design/performance → Traditional 510(k)
│   └── NO → PMA or De Novo
└── NO → Novel device?
    ├── Low-to-moderate risk → De Novo
    └── High risk (Class III) → PMA
```

### Pathway Comparison

| Pathway | When to Use | Timeline | User Fee (FY2024) |
|---------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| 510(k) Traditional | Predicate exists, design changes | 90 days | $21,760 (FY2024) |
| 510(k) Special | Manufacturing changes only | 30 days | $21,760 (FY2024) |
| 510(k) Abbreviated | Guidance/standard conformance | 30 days | $21,760 (FY2024) |
| De Novo | Novel, low-moderate risk | 150 days | $134,676 (FY2024) |
| PMA | Class III, no predicate | 180+ days | $425,000+ (FY2024) |

> User fees are set annually under MDUFA. Verify current-fiscal-year fees at fda.gov (MDUFA user fee schedule) before budgeting; small-business rates differ.

### Pre-Submission Strategy

1. Identify product code and classification
2. Search 510(k) database for predicates
3. Assess substantial equivalence feasibility
4. Prepare Q-Sub questions for FDA
5. Schedule Pre-Sub meeting if needed

**Reference:** See [fda_submission_guide.md](references/fda_submission_guide.md) for pathway decision matrices and submission requirements.

---

## 510(k) Submission Process

### Workflow

```
Phase 1: Planning
├── Step 1: Identify predicate device(s)
├── Step 2: Compare intended use and technology
├── Step 3: Determine testing requirements
└── Checkpoint: SE argument feasible?

Phase 2: Preparation
├── Step 4: Complete performance testing
├── Step 5: Prepare device description
├── Step 6: Document SE comparison
├── Step 7: Finalize labeling
└── Checkpoint: All required sections complete?

Phase 3: Submission
├── Step 8: Assemble submission package
├── Step 9: Submit via eSTAR
├── Step 10: Track acknowledgment
└── Checkpoint: Submission accepted?

Phase 4: Review
├── Step 11: Monitor review status
├── Step 12: Respond to AI requests
├── Step 13: Receive decision
└── Verification: SE letter received?
```

### Required Sections (21 CFR 807.87)

| Section | Content |
|---------|---------|
| Cover Letter | Submission type, device ID, contact info |
| Form 3514 | CDRH premarket review cover sheet |
| Device Description | Physical description, principles of operation |
| Indications for Use | Form 3881, patient population, use environment |
| SE Comparison | Side-by-side comparison with predicate |
| Performance Testing | Bench, biocompatibility, electrical safety |
| Software Documentation | Level of concern, hazard analysis (IEC 62304) |
| Labeling | IFU, package labels, warnings |
| 510(k) Summary | Public summary of submission |

### Common RTA Issues

| Issue | Prevention |
|-------|------------|
| Missing user fee | Verify payment before submission |
| Incomplete Form 3514 | Review all fields, ensure signature |
| No predicate identified | Confirm K-number in FDA database |
| Inadequate SE comparison | Address all technological characteristics |

---

## QMSR Compliance (formerly QSR)

Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) requirements for medical device manufacturers under 21 CFR Part 820.

> **QMSR transition (effective 2026-02-02):** FDA's QMSR final rule (89 FR 7496) amended 21 CFR Part 820 to incorporate **ISO 13485:2016 by reference** and removed the legacy QSR subsection structure (820.20–820.198). Those subsection numbers are **historical** and no longer exist in the CFR; the corresponding requirements now flow from ISO 13485:2016 clauses plus the retained/renumbered sections 820.10 (requirements, incl. the ISO 13485 incorporation), 820.35 (records), and 820.45 (device labeling and packaging controls). 21 CFR Parts 801, 803, 806, and 830 are unchanged. Legacy QSR numbers below are kept only as a familiar index, each mapped to its current ISO 13485 clause.

### Key Quality Subsystems (legacy QSR index → current ISO 13485:2016 clause)

| Legacy QSR Section (historical, pre-2026) | Title | Current authority under QMSR | Focus |
|-------------------------------------------|-------|------------------------------|-------|
| 820.20 | Management Responsibility | ISO 13485 §5.1, 5.5, 5.6 | Quality policy, org structure, management review |
| 820.30 | Design Controls | ISO 13485 §7.3 | Input, output, review, verification, validation |
| 820.40 | Document Controls | ISO 13485 §4.2.4 | Approval, distribution, change control |
| 820.50 | Purchasing Controls | ISO 13485 §7.4 | Supplier qualification, purchasing data |
| 820.70 | Production Controls | ISO 13485 §6.3, 6.4, 7.5 | Process validation, environmental controls |
| 820.100 | CAPA | ISO 13485 §8.5.2, 8.5.3 | Root cause analysis, corrective actions |
| 820.181 | Device Master Record | ISO 13485 §4.2.3 (medical device file) + 21 CFR 820.35 | Specifications, procedures, acceptance criteria |

### Design Controls Workflow (ISO 13485 §7.3; legacy QSR 820.30)

```
Step 1: Design Input
└── Capture user needs, intended use, regulatory requirements
    Verification: Inputs reviewed and approved?

Step 2: Design Output
└── Create specifications, drawings, software architecture
    Verification: Outputs traceable to inputs?

Step 3: Design Review
└── Conduct reviews at each phase milestone
    Verification: Review records with signatures?

Step 4: Design Verification
└── Perform testing against specifications
    Verification: All tests pass acceptance criteria?

Step 5: Design Validation
└── Confirm device meets user needs in actual use conditions
    Verification: Validation report approved?

Step 6: Design Transfer
└── Release to production with DMR complete
    Verification: Transfer checklist complete?
```

### CAPA Process (ISO 13485 §8.5.2/8.5.3; legacy QSR 820.100)

1. **Identify**: Document nonconformity or potential problem
2. **Investigate**: Perform root cause analysis (5 Whys, Fishbone)
3. **Plan**: Define corrective/preventive actions
4. **Implement**: Execute actions, update documentation
5. **Verify**: Confirm implementation complete
6. **Effectiveness**: Monitor for recurrence (30-90 days)
7. **Close**: Management approval and closure

**Reference:** See [qsr_compliance_requirements.md](references/qsr_compliance_requirements.md) for the historical QSR structure with full QMSR/ISO 13485:2016 clause mapping.

---

## HIPAA for Medical Devices

HIPAA requirements for devices that create, store, transmit, or access Protected Health Information (PHI).

### Applicability

| Device Type | HIPAA Applies |
|-------------|---------------|
| Standalone diagnostic (no data transmission) | No |
| Connected device transmitting patient data | Yes |
| Device with EHR integration | Yes |
| SaMD storing patient information | Yes |
| Wellness app (no diagnosis) | Only if stores PHI |

### Required Safeguards

```
Administrative (§164.308)
├── Security officer designation
├── Risk analysis and management
├── Workforce training
├── Incident response procedures
└── Business associate agreements

Physical (§164.310)
├── Facility access controls
├── Workstation security
└── Device disposal procedures

Technical (§164.312)
├── Access control (unique IDs, auto-logoff)
├── Audit controls (logging)
├── Integrity controls (checksums, hashes)
├── Authentication (MFA recommended)
└── Transmission security (TLS 1.2+)
```

### Risk Assessment Steps

1. Inventory all systems handling ePHI
2. Document data flows (collection, storage, transmission)
3. Identify threats and vulnerabilities
4. Assess likelihood and impact
5. Determine risk levels
6. Implement controls
7. Document residual risk

**Reference:** See [hipaa_compliance_framework.md](references/hipaa_compliance_framework.md) for implementation checklists and BAA templates.

---

## Device Cybersecurity

FDA cybersecurity requirements for connected medical devices.

### Premarket Requirements

| Element | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| Threat Model | STRIDE analysis, attack trees, trust boundaries |
| Security Controls | Authentication, encryption, access control |
| SBOM | Software Bill of Materials (CycloneDX or SPDX) |
| Security Testing | Penetration testing, vulnerability scanning |
| Vulnerability Plan | Disclosure process, patch management |

### Device Tier Classification

**Tier 1 (Higher Risk):**
- Connects to network/internet
- Cybersecurity incident could cause patient harm

**Tier 2 (Standard Risk):**
- All other connected devices

### Postmarket Obligations

1. Monitor NVD and ICS-CERT for vulnerabilities
2. Assess applicability to device components
3. Develop and test patches
4. Communicate with customers
5. Report to FDA per guidance

### Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure

```
Researcher Report
    ↓
Acknowledgment (48 hours)
    ↓
Initial Assessment (5 days)
    ↓
Fix Development
    ↓
Coordinated Public Disclosure
```

**Reference:** See [device_cybersecurity_guidance.md](references/device_cybersecurity_guidance.md) for SBOM format examples and threat modeling templates.

---

## Resources

### scripts/

| Script | Purpose |
|--------|---------|
| `fda_submission_tracker.py` | Track 510(k)/PMA/De Novo submission milestones and timelines |
| `qsr_compliance_checker.py` | Assess QMS documentation against the legacy-QSR checklist mapped to ISO 13485:2016 (QMSR) |
| `hipaa_risk_assessment.py` | Evaluate HIPAA safeguards in medical device software |

### references/

| File | Content |
|------|---------|
| `fda_submission_guide.md` | 510(k), De Novo, PMA submission requirements and checklists |
| `qsr_compliance_requirements.md` | Historical QSR structure with QMSR/ISO 13485:2016 mapping, implementation templates |
| `hipaa_compliance_framework.md` | HIPAA Security Rule safeguards and BAA requirements |
| `device_cybersecurity_guidance.md` | FDA cybersecurity requirements, SBOM, threat modeling |
| `fda_capa_requirements.md` | CAPA process, root cause analysis, effectiveness verification |

### Usage Examples

```bash
# Track FDA submission status
python scripts/fda_submission_tracker.py /path/to/project --type 510k

# Assess QMS documentation (legacy QSR section keys, mapped to ISO 13485 under QMSR)
python scripts/qsr_compliance_checker.py /path/to/project --section 820.30  # legacy checklist key = ISO 13485 §7.3 (design & development)

# Run HIPAA risk assessment
python scripts/hipaa_risk_assessment.py /path/to/project --category technical
```

More from alirezarezvani/claude-skills

SkillDescription
a11y-auditAccessibility 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.
ab-test-setupWhen 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.
ad-creativeWhen 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.
adversarial-reviewerAdversarial 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.
aeoAnswer 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.
agent-designerUse when the user asks to design a multi-agent system, pick an orchestration pattern (supervisor/swarm/pipeline), generate tool schemas for agents, or evaluate agent execution logs for cost, latency, and failure bottlenecks. Examples: 'design an agent architecture for research automation', 'generate Anthropic tool schemas from these tool descriptions', 'analyze these agent run logs for bottlenecks'. NOT for Claude Code workflow files (use workflow-builder) or single-agent prompt design (use agent-workflow-designer).
agent-protocolInter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.
agent-workflow-designerDesign production-grade multi-agent workflows with clear pattern choice (sequential, parallel, hierarchical), handoff contracts, failure handling, and cost/context controls. Use when architecting a multi-step agent pipeline, choosing between single-agent vs multi-agent approaches, or refactoring an LLM workflow that suffers from context bloat or unreliable handoffs.
agenthubMulti-agent collaboration plugin that spawns N parallel subagents competing on the same task via git worktree isolation. Agents work independently, results are evaluated by metric or LLM judge, and the best branch is merged. Use when: user wants multiple approaches tried in parallel — code optimization, content variation, research exploration, or any task that benefits from parallel competition. Requires: a git repo.
agile-product-ownerAgile product ownership for backlog management and sprint execution. Covers user story writing, acceptance criteria, sprint planning, and velocity tracking. Use when writing user stories, creating acceptance criteria, planning sprints, estimating story points, breaking down epics, or prioritizing the backlog.