prepare-inspection-readiness
정보
이 Claude Skill은 FDA, EMA, MHRA와 같은 규제 기관의 검사에 대비해 조직을 준비시키는 데 도움을 줍니다. 모의 검사, 문서 준비, 과거 경고장 분석을 통해 준비 상태를 평가합니다. 검사가 발표되었을 때, 정기적인 자체 평가 시, 또는 새로운 시스템을 도입한 후에 사용하세요.
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/prepare-inspection-readinessClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
Prepare Inspection Readiness
Assess and improve organisational readiness for regulatory inspection, covering documentation, personnel preparation, logistics, and response planning.
When to Use
- A regulatory inspection has been announced or is anticipated
- Periodic self-assessment of inspection readiness is due
- New systems or processes have been implemented since the last inspection
- Industry trends (warning letters, 483s) indicate an emerging focus area
- After a significant audit finding that may attract regulatory attention
Inputs
- Required: Inspecting authority (FDA, EMA, MHRA, or 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
Procedure
Step 1: Analyse Agency-Specific Focus Areas
Research the 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: A risk-rated analysis of inspection focus areas specific to the inspecting authority. If fail: If recent 483/warning letter data is unavailable, consult the FDA warning letter database, EMA inspection reports, or industry publications for the most current trends.
Step 2: Conduct Readiness Self-Assessment
Evaluate the 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: A quantified readiness assessment with prioritised remediation actions. If fail: If overall readiness is below 70%, consider requesting an inspection delay (if permitted) and implementing 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 are assembled, indexed, and accessible within 30 minutes of an inspector's request. If fail: If documents are missing or incomplete, create a gap list, prioritise remediation, and document the 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 the real inspection does. If fail: If mock inspection reveals critical gaps, treat them as critical findings with the 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 a professional, organised response to the inspection. If fail: If key personnel are unavailable on the 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: If response templates are generic and do not address the specific observation, customise each response with specific evidence and timelines.
Validation
- 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, and communication protocol
- Response templates prepared for common observation types
- All critical remediation items closed before the inspection date
Pitfalls
- Last-minute preparation: Inspection readiness is a continuous programme, not a cramming exercise. Organisations that scramble produce disorganised, incomplete responses.
- Hiding problems: Inspectors are experienced professionals who detect concealment. Transparency with a 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 have never practiced responding to inspector questions perform poorly. Mock inspections are essential practice.
- Ignoring the back room: The back room (document retrieval and strategy coordination) is as important as the front room. Poor document retrieval creates the impression of disorganisation.
Related Skills
design-compliance-architecture— the foundation document inspectors will want to seeconduct-gxp-audit— internal audits should mimic inspection methodologymonitor-data-integrity— data integrity is the top FDA inspection focus areainvestigate-capa-root-cause— CAPAs must be thoroughly investigated before inspectionqualify-vendor— vendor qualifications are frequently requested during inspections
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.
