返回技能列表

conduct-gxp-audit

pjt222
更新于 Yesterday
4 次查看
17
2
17
在 GitHub 上查看
data

关于

This skill enables developers to conduct comprehensive GxP audits of computerized systems, covering the full lifecycle from planning and evidence collection to CAPA generation and follow-up verification. It supports various audit types including internal, supplier qualification, and for-cause audits triggered by deviations. Key capabilities include finding classification (critical/major/minor) and structured report generation for compliance reviews.

快速安装

Claude Code

推荐
主要方式
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
插件命令备选方式
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git 克隆备选方式
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/conduct-gxp-audit

在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能

技能文档

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:

  1. Introduce audit team and roles
  2. Confirm scope, schedule, and logistics
  3. Explain finding classification system (critical/major/minor)
  4. Confirm confidentiality agreements
  5. Identify auditee escorts and document custodians
  6. 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:

ClassificationDefinitionResponse Required
CriticalDirect impact on product quality, patient safety, or data integrity. Systematic failure of a key control.Immediate containment + CAPA within 15 business days
MajorSignificant departure from GxP requirements. Potential to impact data integrity if uncorrected.CAPA within 30 business days
MinorIsolated deviation from procedure. No direct impact on data integrity or product quality.Correction within 60 business days
ObservationOpportunity 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:

  1. Present findings summary (no new findings should be raised)
  2. Review finding classifications
  3. Discuss preliminary CAPA expectations and timelines
  4. Confirm next steps and report timeline
  5. 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 environments
  • implement-audit-trail — audit trail implementation for electronic records
  • write-validation-documentation — IQ/OQ/PQ protocol and report writing
  • security-audit-codebase — security-focused code audit (complementary perspective)

GitHub 仓库

pjt222/agent-almanac
路径: i18n/caveman-lite/skills/conduct-gxp-audit
0
agentsagentskillsai-assisted-developmentclaude-codeskillsteams

相关推荐技能

content-collections

Content Collections 是一个 TypeScript 优先的构建工具,可将本地 Markdown/MDX 文件转换为类型安全的数据集合。它专为构建博客、文档站和内容密集型 Vite+React 应用而设计,提供基于 Zod 的自动模式验证。该工具涵盖从 Vite 插件配置、MDX 编译到生产环境部署的完整工作流。

查看技能

polymarket

这个Claude Skill为开发者提供完整的Polymarket预测市场开发支持,涵盖API调用、交易执行和市场数据分析。关键特性包括实时WebSocket数据流,可监控实时交易、订单和市场动态。开发者可用它构建预测市场应用、实施交易策略并集成实时市场预测功能。

查看技能

creating-opencode-plugins

该Skill帮助开发者创建OpenCode插件,用于接入命令、文件、LSP等25+种事件。它提供了插件结构、事件API规范和JavaScript/TypeScript实现模式,适合需要拦截操作、扩展功能或自定义事件处理的场景。开发者可通过它快速构建响应式模块来增强OpenCode AI助手的能力。

查看技能

sglang

SGLang是一个专为LLM设计的高性能推理框架,特别适用于需要结构化输出的场景。它通过RadixAttention前缀缓存技术,在处理JSON、正则表达式、工具调用等具有重复前缀的复杂工作流时,能实现极速生成。如果你正在构建智能体或多轮对话系统,并追求远超vLLM的推理性能,SGLang是理想选择。

查看技能