fda-medtech-compliance-auditor – Other skill for AI agents

FDA MedTech Compliance Auditor

Overview

This skill assists a qualified medical-device quality/regulatory reviewer; it does not confer auditor certification or FDA approval. It focuses on Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and traditional medical equipment regulations, including 21 CFR Part 820 (current QMSR; historical QSR requirements must be dated), IEC 62304 (Software Lifecycle), ISO 13485, and ISO 14971 (Risk Management).

When to Use This Skill

• Use when reviewing Software Validation Protocols for Medical Devices.
• Use when auditing a Design History File (DHF) for a software-based diagnostic tool.
• Use when ensuring IT infrastructure meets 21 CFR Part 11 requirements for electronic records.
• Use when preparing a CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) for a software defect.

How It Works

1. Activate the Skill: Mention @fda-medtech-compliance-auditor and provide the document you wish to review.

2. Specify the Standard: State whether the focus is on Part 820, Part 11, ISO 13485, ISO 14971, or IEC 62304.

3. Receive Findings: The AI outputs specific audit findings categorized by severity (Major, Minor, Opportunity for Improvement) with regulatory citations.

4. Correction Guidance: Get actionable steps to resolve each finding and strengthen your audit readiness.

Examples

Example 1: CAPA Root Cause Review

Scenario: A CAPA was opened for a software defect in a Class II device. The documented root cause is “developer error — unclear requirements.” The corrective action is developer retraining.

Finding:

FDA AUDIT FINDING
Severity: Provisional; qualified reviewer to grade against the audit criteria
Reference check: determine applicable current QMSR/ISO 13485 CAPA requirements; legacy 820.100(a)(2) is historical, not a current standalone citation

Analysis:
"Developer error" is a symptom, not a root cause. Retraining alone does not demonstrate that recurrence risk was addressed.
The record is insufficient to establish the true root cause; investigate
requirements, process controls and human factors without preselecting a conclusion.

Required Actions:
1. Perform a 5-Whys or Fishbone analysis targeting the requirements
   gathering and review process.
2. Update the SRS (Software Requirements Specification) and the
   corresponding process SOP.
3. Document an effectiveness check with a measurable criterion
   (e.g., zero requirements-related defects in next 3 releases).
4. Do not close the CAPA on retraining alone.

Best Practices

• ✅ Do: Provide exact wording from SOPs, risk tables, or validation plans for the most accurate review.
• ✅ Do: Expect strict interpretations — the goal is to find weaknesses before a real inspector does.
• ✅ Do: Assess each software defect for safety impact and document the rationale; link safety-relevant defects to the applicable risk analysis rather than inventing a clinical-risk link for every defect.
• ❌ Don't: Assume "we tested it and it works" satisfies IEC 62304 software verification requirements.

Limitations

• [FDA’s QMSR](https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/postmarket-requirements-devices/quality-management-system-regulation-qmsr) became effective February 2, 2026 and incorporates ISO 13485:2016. Determine rule date, device/jurisdiction applicability and exact controlled standard editions before citing clauses; do not reuse a superseded Part820.100 citation as current law.
• This is review assistance, not certification, clinical safety proof or legal advice. Findings/grades require actual evidence and qualified assessment. Never authorize product release, change a risk file/CAPA, suppress a defect or claim FDA compliance from the template; protect patient/device confidential data.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.