conduct-gxp-audit
정보
이 스킬은 개발자들이 컴퓨터화된 시스템에 대한 포괄적인 GxP 감사를 수행할 수 있도록 지원하며, 계획 수립과 증거 수집부터 CAPA 생성 및 후속 검증에 이르는 전체 라이프사이클을 다룹니다. 내부 감사, 공급자 적격성 평가, 편차로 인해 촉발된 원인별 감사 등 다양한 감사 유형을 지원합니다. 주요 기능으로는 발견 사항의 분류(치명적/주요/경미) 및 규정 준수 검토를 위한 구조화된 보고서 생성이 포함됩니다.
빠른 설치
Claude Code
추천npx 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/conduct-gxp-auditClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
Conduct GxP Audit
Plan and execute a GxP audit of computerized systems, data integrity practices, or regulated processes.
When to Use
- Scheduled internal audit of a validated computerized system
- Supplier/vendor qualification audit for GxP-relevant software
- Pre-inspection readiness assessment before a regulatory audit
- For-cause audit triggered by a deviation, complaint, or data integrity concern
- Periodic review of a validated system's compliance posture
Inputs
- Required: Audit scope (system, process, or site to audit)
- Required: Applicable regulations (21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11, GMP, GLP, GCP)
- Required: Previous audit reports and open CAPA items
- Optional: System validation documentation (URS, VP, IQ/OQ/PQ, traceability matrix)
- Optional: SOPs, training records, change control logs
- Optional: Specific risk areas or concerns triggering the audit
Procedure
Step 1: Develop the Audit Plan
# Audit Plan
## Document ID: AP-[SYS]-[YYYY]-[NNN]
### 1. Objective
[State the purpose: scheduled, for-cause, supplier qualification, pre-inspection]
### 2. Scope
- **System/Process**: [Name and version]
- **Regulations**: [21 CFR Part 11, EU Annex 11, ICH Q7, etc.]
- **Period**: [Date range of records under review]
- **Exclusions**: [Any areas explicitly out of scope]
### 3. Audit Criteria
| Area | Regulatory Reference | Key Requirements |
|------|---------------------|------------------|
| Electronic records | 21 CFR 11.10 | Controls for closed systems |
| Audit trail | 21 CFR 11.10(e) | Secure, computer-generated, time-stamped |
| Electronic signatures | 21 CFR 11.50 | Manifestation, legally binding |
| Access controls | EU Annex 11, §12 | Role-based, documented |
| Data integrity | MHRA guidance | ALCOA+ principles |
| Change control | ICH Q10 | Documented, assessed, approved |
### 4. Schedule
| Date | Time | Activity | Participants |
|------|------|----------|-------------|
| Day 1 AM | 09:00 | Opening meeting | All |
| Day 1 AM | 10:00 | Document review | Auditor + QA |
| Day 1 PM | 13:00 | System walkthrough | Auditor + IT + System Owner |
| Day 2 AM | 09:00 | Interviews + evidence collection | Auditor + Users |
| Day 2 PM | 14:00 | Finding consolidation | Auditor |
| Day 2 PM | 16:00 | Closing meeting | All |
### 5. Audit Team
| Role | Name | Responsibility |
|------|------|---------------|
| Lead Auditor | [Name] | Plan, execute, report |
| Subject Matter Expert | [Name] | Technical assessment |
| Auditee Representative | [Name] | Facilitate access and information |
Got: Audit plan approved by quality management and communicated to auditee at least 2 weeks before the audit. If fail: Reschedule if auditee cannot provide required documentation or personnel.
Step 2: Conduct Opening Meeting
Agenda:
- Introduce audit team and roles
- Confirm scope, schedule, and logistics
- Explain finding classification system (critical/major/minor)
- Confirm confidentiality agreements
- Identify auditee escorts and document custodians
- Address questions
Got: Opening meeting documented with attendance record. If fail: If key personnel are unavailable, reschedule affected audit activities.
Step 3: Collect and Review Evidence
Review documentation and records against audit criteria:
3a. Validation Documentation Review
- URS exists and is approved
- Validation plan matches system category and risk
- IQ/OQ/PQ protocols executed with results documented
- Traceability matrix links requirements to test results
- Deviations documented and resolved
- Validation summary report approved
3b. Operational Controls Review
- SOPs current and approved
- Training records demonstrate competence for all users
- Change control records complete (request, assessment, approval, verification)
- Incident/deviation reports handled per SOP
- Periodic review conducted on schedule
3c. Data Integrity Assessment
- Audit trail enabled and not modifiable by users
- Electronic signatures meet regulatory requirements
- Backup and recovery procedures documented and tested
- Access controls enforce role-based permissions
- Data is attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate (ALCOA+)
3d. System Configuration Review
- Production configuration matches validated state
- User accounts reviewed — no shared accounts, inactive accounts disabled
- System clocks synchronized and accurate
- Security patches applied per approved change control
Got: Evidence collected as screenshots, document copies, interview notes with timestamps. If fail: Record "unable to verify" as an observation and note the reason.
Step 4: Classify Findings
Classify each finding by severity:
| Classification | Definition | Response Required |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Direct impact on product quality, patient safety, or data integrity. Systematic failure of a key control. | Immediate containment + CAPA within 15 business days |
| Major | Significant departure from GxP requirements. Potential to impact data integrity if uncorrected. | CAPA within 30 business days |
| Minor | Isolated deviation from procedure. No direct impact on data integrity or product quality. | Correction within 60 business days |
| Observation | Opportunity for improvement. Not a regulatory requirement. | Optional — tracked for trend analysis |
Document each finding:
## Finding F-[NNN]
**Classification:** [Critical / Major / Minor / Observation]
**Area:** [Audit trail / Access control / Change control / etc.]
**Reference:** [Regulatory clause, e.g., 21 CFR 11.10(e)]
**Observation:**
[Objective description of what was found]
**Evidence:**
[Document ID, screenshot reference, interview notes]
**Regulatory Expectation:**
[What the regulation requires]
**Risk:**
[Impact on data integrity, product quality, or patient safety]
Got: Every finding has classification, evidence, and regulatory reference. If fail: If classification is disputed, escalate to the audit program manager for adjudication.
Step 5: Conduct Closing Meeting
Agenda:
- Present findings summary (no new findings should be raised)
- Review finding classifications
- Discuss preliminary CAPA expectations and timelines
- Confirm next steps and report timeline
- Acknowledge auditee cooperation
Got: Closing meeting documented with attendance. Auditee acknowledges findings (acknowledgement ≠ agreement). If fail: If auditee disputes a finding, document the disagreement and escalate per SOP.
Step 6: Write Audit Report
# Audit Report
## Document ID: AR-[SYS]-[YYYY]-[NNN]
### 1. Executive Summary
An audit of [System/Process] was conducted on [dates] against [regulations].
[N] findings were identified: [n] critical, [n] major, [n] minor, [n] observations.
### 2. Scope and Methodology
[Summarize audit plan scope, criteria, and methods used]
### 3. Findings Summary
| Finding ID | Classification | Area | Brief Description |
|-----------|---------------|------|-------------------|
| F-001 | Major | Audit trail | Audit trail disabled for batch record module |
| F-002 | Minor | Training | Two users missing annual GxP training |
| F-003 | Observation | Documentation | SOP formatting inconsistencies |
### 4. Detailed Findings
[Include full finding details from Step 4 for each finding]
### 5. Positive Observations
[Document areas of good practice observed during the audit]
### 6. Conclusion
The overall compliance status is assessed as [Satisfactory / Needs Improvement / Unsatisfactory].
### 7. Distribution
| Recipient | Role |
|-----------|------|
| [Name] | System Owner |
| [Name] | QA Director |
| [Name] | IT Manager |
### Approval
| Role | Name | Signature | Date |
|------|------|-----------|------|
| Lead Auditor | | | |
| QA Director | | | |
Got: Report issued within 15 business days of the closing meeting. If fail: If delayed beyond 15 days, notify stakeholders and document the reason.
Step 7: Track CAPA and Verify Effectiveness
For each finding requiring a CAPA:
## CAPA Tracking
| Finding ID | CAPA ID | Root Cause | Corrective Action | Due Date | Status | Effectiveness Check |
|-----------|---------|------------|-------------------|----------|--------|-------------------|
| F-001 | CAPA-2025-042 | Configuration oversight during upgrade | Enable audit trail, verify all modules | 2025-04-15 | Open | Scheduled 2025-07-15 |
| F-002 | CAPA-2025-043 | Training matrix not updated | Complete training, update tracking | 2025-05-01 | Open | Scheduled 2025-08-01 |
Got: CAPAs assigned, tracked, and effectiveness verified per defined timeline. If fail: Unresolved CAPAs escalate to QA management and are flagged in the next audit cycle.
Validation
- Audit plan approved and communicated before audit
- Opening and closing meetings documented with attendance
- Evidence collected with timestamps and source references
- Every finding has classification, evidence, and regulatory reference
- Audit report issued within 15 business days
- CAPAs assigned with due dates for all critical and major findings
- Previous audit CAPAs verified for closure effectiveness
Pitfalls
- Scope creep: Expanding the audit scope during execution without formal agreement leads to incomplete coverage and disputes.
- Opinion-based findings: Findings must reference specific regulatory requirements, not personal preferences.
- Adversarial tone: Audits are collaborative quality improvement exercises, not interrogations.
- Ignoring positives: Reporting only findings without acknowledging good practices undermines trust.
- No effectiveness check: Closing a CAPA without verifying the fix actually works is a recurring regulatory citation.
Related Skills
perform-csv-assessment— full CSV lifecycle assessment (URS through validation summary)setup-gxp-r-project— project structure for validated R environmentsimplement-audit-trail— audit trail implementation for electronic recordswrite-validation-documentation— IQ/OQ/PQ protocol and report writingsecurity-audit-codebase— security-focused code audit (complementary perspective)
GitHub 저장소
연관 스킬
content-collections
메타이 스킬은 콘텐츠 콜렉션(Content Collections)을 위한 프로덕션 검증된 설정을 제공합니다. 콘텐츠 콜렉션은 Markdown/MDX 파일을 Zod 검증이 포함된 타입 안전한 데이터 콜렉션으로 변환해주는 TypeScript 최우선 도구입니다. 블로그, 문서 사이트 또는 콘텐츠 중심의 Vite + React 애플리케이션을 구축할 때 타입 안전성과 자동 콘텐츠 검증을 보장하기 위해 사용하세요. Vite 플러그인 구성과 MDX 컴파일부터 배포 최적화 및 스키마 검증에 이르기까지 모든 것을 다룹니다.
polymarket
메타이 스킬은 개발자들이 Polymarket 예측 시장 플랫폼을 활용한 애플리케이션을 구축할 수 있도록 지원하며, 거래 및 시장 데이터를 위한 API 통합 기능을 포함합니다. 또한 WebSocket을 통한 실시간 데이터 스트리밍을 제공하여 실시간 거래와 시장 활동을 모니터링할 수 있습니다. 이를 통해 거래 전략을 구현하거나 실시간 시장 업데이트를 처리하는 도구를 생성하는 데 활용할 수 있습니다.
creating-opencode-plugins
메타이 스킬은 개발자들이 명령어, 파일, LSP 작업 등 25개 이상의 이벤트 유형에 연결되는 OpenCode 플러그인을 만들 수 있도록 돕습니다. JavaScript/TypeScript 모듈을 위한 플러그인 구조, 이벤트 API 명세, 구현 패턴을 제공합니다. OpenCode AI 어시스턴트의 라이프사이클을 사용자 정의 이벤트 기반 로직으로 가로채거나, 모니터링하거나, 확장해야 할 때 사용하세요.
sglang
메타SGLang은 RadixAttention 프리픽스 캐싱을 활용하여 JSON, 정규식, 에이전트 워크플로우를 위한 고속 구조화 생성에 특화된 고성능 LLM 서빙 프레임워크입니다. 특히 반복되는 프리픽스가 있는 작업에서 상당히 빠른 추론 속도를 제공하여 복잡한 구조화 출력 및 다중 턴 대화에 이상적입니다. 제약 디코딩이 필요하거나 광범위한 프리픽스 공유가 있는 애플리케이션을 구축할 때는 vLLM과 같은 대안보다 SGLang을 선택하십시오.
