prepare-inspection-readiness
Über
Diese Claude Skill unterstützt Entwickler dabei, eine Organisation auf behördliche Inspektionen durch Behörden wie die FDA, EMA und MHRA vorzubereiten. Sie bewertet die Bereitschaft durch Mock-Inspektionen, Dokumentenvorbereitung und die Analyse früherer Warnschreiben. Nutzen Sie sie bei angekündigten Inspektionen, für regelmäßige Selbstbewertungen oder nach der Implementierung neuer Systeme.
Schnellinstallation
Claude Code
Empfohlennpx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/prepare-inspection-readinessKopieren Sie diesen Befehl und fügen Sie ihn in Claude Code ein, um diese Fähigkeit zu installieren
Dokumentation
Prepare Inspection Readiness
Assess and improve organisational readiness for regulatory inspection. Cover documentation, personnel preparation, logistics, response planning.
When Use
- Regulatory inspection announced or anticipated
- Periodic self-assessment of inspection readiness due
- New systems or processes implemented since last inspection
- Industry trends (warning letters, 483s) indicate emerging focus area
- After significant audit finding that may attract regulatory attention
Inputs
- Required: Inspecting authority (FDA, EMA, MHRA, 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
Steps
Step 1: Analyse Agency-Specific Focus Areas
Research 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] |
Got: Risk-rated analysis of inspection focus areas specific to inspecting authority.
If fail: Recent 483/warning letter data unavailable? Consult FDA warning letter database, EMA inspection reports, industry publications for most current trends.
Step 2: Conduct Readiness Self-Assessment
Evaluate 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] |
Got: Quantified readiness assessment with prioritised remediation actions.
If fail: Overall readiness below 70%? Consider requesting inspection delay (if permitted). Implement 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
Got: All bundles assembled, indexed, accessible within 30 minutes of inspector's request.
If fail: Documents missing or incomplete? Create gap list, prioritise remediation, document 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] |
Got: Mock inspection reveals issues before real inspection does.
If fail: Mock reveals critical gaps? Treat as critical findings with 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
Got: Logistics plan ensures professional, organised response to inspection.
If fail: Key personnel unavailable on 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"
Got: Response templates enable rapid, structured replies to inspection observations.
If fail: Response templates generic and don't address specific observation? Customise each response with specific evidence and timelines.
Checks
- 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, communication protocol
- Response templates prepared for common observation types
- All critical remediation items closed before inspection date
Pitfalls
- Last-minute preparation: Inspection readiness is continuous programme, not cramming exercise. Organisations that scramble produce disorganised, incomplete responses.
- Hiding problems: Inspectors are experienced professionals who detect concealment. Transparency with 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 never practiced responding to inspector questions perform poorly. Mock inspections essential practice.
- Ignore back room: Back room (document retrieval and strategy coordination) as important as front room. Poor document retrieval creates impression of disorganisation.
See Also
design-compliance-architecture— foundation document inspectors will want to seeconduct-gxp-audit— internal audits should mimic inspection methodologymonitor-data-integrity— data integrity is top FDA inspection focus areainvestigate-capa-root-cause— CAPAs must be thoroughly investigated before inspectionqualify-vendor— vendor qualifications frequently requested during inspections
GitHub Repository
Verwandte Skills
content-collections
MetaDiese Skill bietet eine produktionsgetestete Einrichtung für Content Collections – ein TypeScript-first-Tool, das Markdown/MDX-Dateien in typsichere Datensammlungen mit Zod-Validierung umwandelt. Verwenden Sie ihn beim Erstellen von Blogs, Dokumentationsseiten oder inhaltsstarken Vite + React-Anwendungen, um Typsicherheit und automatische Inhaltsvalidierung zu gewährleisten. Er behandelt alles von der Vite-Plugin-Konfiguration und MDX-Kompilierung bis hin zur Deployment-Optimierung und Schema-Validierung.
polymarket
MetaDiese Fähigkeit ermöglicht es Entwicklern, Anwendungen mit der Polymarket-Prognosemärkte-Plattform zu erstellen, einschließlich API-Integration für Handel und Marktdaten. Sie bietet außerdem Echtzeit-Datenstreaming über WebSocket, um Live-Trades und Marktaktivitäten zu überwachen. Nutzen Sie sie zur Implementierung von Handelsstrategien oder zur Erstellung von Tools, die Live-Marktaktualisierungen verarbeiten.
creating-opencode-plugins
MetaDiese Fähigkeit unterstützt Entwickler dabei, OpenCode-Plugins zu erstellen, die in über 25 Ereignistypen wie Befehle, Dateien und LSP-Operationen eingreifen. Sie bietet die Plugin-Struktur, Event-API-Spezifikationen und Implementierungsmuster für JavaScript/TypeScript-Module. Nutzen Sie sie, wenn Sie den Lebenszyklus des OpenCode KI-Assistenten mit benutzerdefinierter ereignisgesteuerter Logik abfangen, überwachen oder erweitern müssen.
sglang
MetaSGLang ist ein hochperformantes LLM-Serving-Framework, das sich auf schnelle, strukturierte Generierung für JSON, Regex und agentenbasierte Workflows unter Verwendung seines RadixAttention-Prefix-Cachings spezialisiert. Es bietet deutlich schnellere Inferenz, insbesondere für Aufgaben mit wiederholten Präfixen, was es ideal für komplexe, strukturierte Ausgaben und Mehrfachdialoge macht. Wählen Sie SGLang gegenüber Alternativen wie vLLM, wenn Sie constrained decoding benötigen oder Anwendungen mit umfangreicher Präfix-Weitergabe entwickeln.
