fda-qsr-audit-prep

$npx mdskill add alirezarezvani/claude-skills/fda-qsr-audit-prep

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

SKILL.md

.github/skills/fda-qsr-audit-prepView on GitHub ↗
---
name: "fda-qsr-audit-prep"
description: "/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."
---

# /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

```bash
# 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

```markdown
# 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

- Agent: [`cs-fda-qsr-auditor`](../../agents/cs-fda-qsr-auditor.md)
- Skill: [`fda-consultant-specialist`](../../../ra-qm-team/skills/fda-consultant-specialist/SKILL.md)
- Adjacent: `../iso13485-audit-prep/`, `../compliance-readiness/`

---

**Version:** 1.0.0

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.