Claude-Skills capa-officer
git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/ra-qm-team/capa-officer" ~/.claude/skills/borghei-claude-skills-capa-officer && rm -rf "$T"
ra-qm-team/capa-officer/SKILL.mdCAPA Officer
Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) management within Quality Management Systems, focusing on systematic root cause analysis, action implementation, and effectiveness verification.
Table of Contents
- CAPA Investigation Workflow
- Root Cause Analysis
- Corrective Action Planning
- Effectiveness Verification
- CAPA Metrics and Reporting
- Reference Documentation
- Tools
CAPA Investigation Workflow
Conduct systematic CAPA investigation from initiation through closure:
- Document trigger event with objective evidence
- Assess significance and determine CAPA necessity
- Form investigation team with relevant expertise
- Collect data and evidence systematically
- Select and apply appropriate RCA methodology
- Identify root cause(s) with supporting evidence
- Develop corrective and preventive actions
- Validation: Root cause explains all symptoms; if eliminated, problem would not recur
CAPA Necessity Determination
| Trigger Type | CAPA Required | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Customer complaint (safety) | Yes | Any complaint involving patient/user safety |
| Customer complaint (quality) | Evaluate | Based on severity and frequency |
| Internal audit finding (Major) | Yes | Systematic failure or absence of element |
| Internal audit finding (Minor) | Recommended | Isolated lapse or partial implementation |
| Nonconformance (recurring) | Yes | Same NC type occurring 3+ times |
| Nonconformance (isolated) | Evaluate | Based on severity and risk |
| External audit finding | Yes | All Major and Minor findings |
| Trend analysis | Evaluate | Based on trend significance |
Investigation Team Composition
| CAPA Severity | Required Team Members |
|---|---|
| Critical | CAPA Officer, Process Owner, QA Manager, Subject Matter Expert, Management Rep |
| Major | CAPA Officer, Process Owner, Subject Matter Expert |
| Minor | CAPA Officer, Process Owner |
Evidence Collection Checklist
- Problem description with specific details (what, where, when, who, how much)
- Timeline of events leading to issue
- Relevant records and documentation
- Interview notes from involved personnel
- Photos or physical evidence (if applicable)
- Related complaints, NCs, or previous CAPAs
- Process parameters and specifications
Root Cause Analysis
Select and apply appropriate RCA methodology based on problem characteristics.
RCA Method Selection Decision Tree
Is the issue safety-critical or involves system reliability? ├── Yes → Use FAULT TREE ANALYSIS └── No → Is human error the suspected primary cause? ├── Yes → Use HUMAN FACTORS ANALYSIS └── No → How many potential contributing factors? ├── 1-2 factors (linear causation) → Use 5 WHY ANALYSIS ├── 3-6 factors (complex, systemic) → Use FISHBONE DIAGRAM └── Unknown/proactive assessment → Use FMEA
5 Why Analysis
Use when: Single-cause issues with linear causation, process deviations with clear failure point.
Template:
PROBLEM: [Clear, specific statement] WHY 1: Why did [problem] occur? BECAUSE: [First-level cause] EVIDENCE: [Supporting data] WHY 2: Why did [first-level cause] occur? BECAUSE: [Second-level cause] EVIDENCE: [Supporting data] WHY 3: Why did [second-level cause] occur? BECAUSE: [Third-level cause] EVIDENCE: [Supporting data] WHY 4: Why did [third-level cause] occur? BECAUSE: [Fourth-level cause] EVIDENCE: [Supporting data] WHY 5: Why did [fourth-level cause] occur? BECAUSE: [Root cause] EVIDENCE: [Supporting data]
Example - Calibration Overdue:
PROBLEM: pH meter (EQ-042) found 2 months overdue for calibration WHY 1: Why was calibration overdue? BECAUSE: Equipment was not on calibration schedule EVIDENCE: Calibration schedule reviewed, EQ-042 not listed WHY 2: Why was it not on the schedule? BECAUSE: Schedule not updated when equipment was purchased EVIDENCE: Purchase date 2023-06-15, schedule dated 2023-01-01 WHY 3: Why was the schedule not updated? BECAUSE: No process requires schedule update at equipment purchase EVIDENCE: SOP-EQ-001 reviewed, no such requirement WHY 4: Why is there no such requirement? BECAUSE: Procedure written before equipment tracking was centralized EVIDENCE: SOP last revised 2019, equipment system implemented 2021 WHY 5: Why has procedure not been updated? BECAUSE: Periodic review did not assess compatibility with new systems EVIDENCE: No review against new equipment system documented ROOT CAUSE: Procedure review process does not assess compatibility with organizational systems implemented after original procedure creation.
Fishbone Diagram Categories (6M)
| Category | Focus Areas | Typical Causes |
|---|---|---|
| Man (People) | Training, competency, workload | Skill gaps, fatigue, communication |
| Machine (Equipment) | Calibration, maintenance, age | Wear, malfunction, inadequate capacity |
| Method (Process) | Procedures, work instructions | Unclear steps, missing controls |
| Material | Specifications, suppliers, storage | Out-of-spec, degradation, contamination |
| Measurement | Calibration, methods, interpretation | Instrument error, wrong method |
| Mother Nature | Temperature, humidity, cleanliness | Environmental excursions |
See
references/rca-methodologies.md for complete method details and templates.
Root Cause Validation
Before proceeding to action planning, validate root cause:
- Root cause can be verified with objective evidence
- If root cause is eliminated, problem would not recur
- Root cause is within organizational control
- Root cause explains all observed symptoms
- No other significant causes remain unaddressed
Corrective Action Planning
Develop effective actions addressing identified root causes:
- Define immediate containment actions
- Develop corrective actions targeting root cause
- Identify preventive actions for similar processes
- Assign responsibilities and resources
- Establish timeline with milestones
- Define success criteria and verification method
- Document in CAPA action plan
- Validation: Actions directly address root cause; success criteria are measurable
Action Types
| Type | Purpose | Timeline | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Containment | Stop immediate impact | 24-72 hours | Quarantine affected product |
| Correction | Fix the specific occurrence | 1-2 weeks | Rework or replace affected items |
| Corrective | Eliminate root cause | 30-90 days | Revise procedure, add controls |
| Preventive | Prevent in other areas | 60-120 days | Extend solution to similar processes |
Action Plan Components
ACTION PLAN TEMPLATE CAPA Number: [CAPA-XXXX] Root Cause: [Identified root cause] ACTION 1: [Specific action description] - Type: [ ] Containment [ ] Correction [ ] Corrective [ ] Preventive - Responsible: [Name, Title] - Due Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] - Resources: [Required resources] - Success Criteria: [Measurable outcome] - Verification Method: [How success will be verified] ACTION 2: [Specific action description] ... IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE: Week 1: [Milestone] Week 2: [Milestone] Week 4: [Milestone] Week 8: [Milestone] APPROVAL: CAPA Owner: _____________ Date: _______ Process Owner: _____________ Date: _______ QA Manager: _____________ Date: _______
Action Effectiveness Indicators
| Indicator | Target | Red Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Action scope | Addresses root cause completely | Treats only symptoms |
| Specificity | Measurable deliverables | Vague commitments |
| Timeline | Aggressive but achievable | No due dates or unrealistic |
| Resources | Identified and allocated | Not specified |
| Sustainability | Permanent solution | Temporary fix |
Effectiveness Verification
Verify corrective actions achieved intended results:
- Allow adequate implementation period (minimum 30-90 days)
- Collect post-implementation data
- Compare to pre-implementation baseline
- Evaluate against success criteria
- Verify no recurrence during verification period
- Document verification evidence
- Determine CAPA effectiveness
- Validation: All criteria met with objective evidence; no recurrence observed
Verification Timeline Guidelines
| CAPA Severity | Wait Period | Verification Window |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | 30 days | 30-90 days post-implementation |
| Major | 60 days | 60-180 days post-implementation |
| Minor | 90 days | 90-365 days post-implementation |
Verification Methods
| Method | Use When | Evidence Required |
|---|---|---|
| Data trend analysis | Quantifiable issues | Pre/post comparison, trend charts |
| Process audit | Procedure compliance issues | Audit checklist, interview notes |
| Record review | Documentation issues | Sample records, compliance rate |
| Testing/inspection | Product quality issues | Test results, pass/fail data |
| Interview/observation | Training issues | Interview notes, observation records |
Effectiveness Determination
Did recurrence occur during verification period? ├── Yes → CAPA INEFFECTIVE (re-investigate root cause) └── No → Were all effectiveness criteria met? ├── Yes → CAPA EFFECTIVE (proceed to closure) └── No → Extent of gap? ├── Minor gap → Extend verification or accept with justification └── Significant gap → CAPA INEFFECTIVE (revise actions)
See
references/effectiveness-verification-guide.md for detailed procedures.
CAPA Metrics and Reporting
Monitor CAPA program performance through key indicators.
Key Performance Indicators
| Metric | Target | Calculation |
|---|---|---|
| CAPA cycle time | <60 days average | (Close Date - Open Date) / Number of CAPAs |
| Overdue rate | <10% | Overdue CAPAs / Total Open CAPAs |
| First-time effectiveness | >90% | Effective on first verification / Total verified |
| Recurrence rate | <5% | Recurred issues / Total closed CAPAs |
| Investigation quality | 100% root cause validated | Root causes validated / Total CAPAs |
Aging Analysis Categories
| Age Bucket | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| 0-30 days | On track | Monitor progress |
| 31-60 days | Monitor | Review for delays |
| 61-90 days | Warning | Escalate to management |
| >90 days | Critical | Management intervention required |
Management Review Inputs
Monthly CAPA status report includes:
- Open CAPA count by severity and status
- Overdue CAPA list with owners
- Cycle time trends
- Effectiveness rate trends
- Source analysis (complaints, audits, NCs)
- Recommendations for improvement
Reference Documentation
Root Cause Analysis Methodologies
references/rca-methodologies.md contains:
- Method selection decision tree
- 5 Why analysis template and example
- Fishbone diagram categories and template
- Fault Tree Analysis for safety-critical issues
- Human Factors Analysis for people-related causes
- FMEA for proactive risk assessment
- Hybrid approach guidance
Effectiveness Verification Guide
references/effectiveness-verification-guide.md contains:
- Verification planning requirements
- Verification method selection
- Effectiveness criteria definition (SMART)
- Closure requirements by severity
- Ineffective CAPA process
- Documentation templates
Tools
CAPA Tracker
# Generate CAPA status report python scripts/capa_tracker.py --capas capas.json # Interactive mode for manual entry python scripts/capa_tracker.py --interactive # JSON output for integration python scripts/capa_tracker.py --capas capas.json --output json # Generate sample data file python scripts/capa_tracker.py --sample > sample_capas.json
Calculates and reports:
- Summary metrics (open, closed, overdue, cycle time, effectiveness)
- Status distribution
- Severity and source analysis
- Aging report by time bucket
- Overdue CAPA list
- Actionable recommendations
Sample CAPA Input
{ "capas": [ { "capa_number": "CAPA-2024-001", "title": "Calibration overdue for pH meter", "description": "pH meter EQ-042 found 2 months overdue", "source": "AUDIT", "severity": "MAJOR", "status": "VERIFICATION", "open_date": "2024-06-15", "target_date": "2024-08-15", "owner": "J. Smith", "root_cause": "Procedure review gap", "corrective_action": "Updated SOP-EQ-001" } ] }
Regulatory Requirements
ISO 13485:2016 Clause 8.5
| Sub-clause | Requirement | Key Activities |
|---|---|---|
| 8.5.2 Corrective Action | Eliminate cause of nonconformity | NC review, cause determination, action evaluation, implementation, effectiveness review |
| 8.5.3 Preventive Action | Eliminate potential nonconformity | Trend analysis, cause determination, action evaluation, implementation, effectiveness review |
FDA 21 CFR 820.100
Required CAPA elements:
- Procedures for implementing corrective and preventive action
- Analyzing quality data sources (complaints, NCs, audits, service records)
- Investigating cause of nonconformities
- Identifying actions needed to correct and prevent recurrence
- Verifying actions are effective and do not adversely affect device
- Submitting relevant information for management review
Common FDA 483 Observations
| Observation | Root Cause Pattern |
|---|---|
| CAPA not initiated for recurring issue | Trend analysis not performed |
| Root cause analysis superficial | Inadequate investigation training |
| Effectiveness not verified | No verification procedure |
| Actions do not address root cause | Symptom treatment vs. cause elimination |
Troubleshooting
| Problem | Possible Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Root cause analysis yields only symptoms | Investigation stopped too early or used wrong RCA method | Apply the RCA Method Selection Decision Tree; ensure at least 5 levels of "why" with evidence at each level |
| CAPA effectiveness verification fails repeatedly | Corrective action addresses symptoms, not true root cause | Re-open investigation, consider hybrid RCA approach (e.g., Fishbone + 5-Why), involve additional subject matter experts |
| CAPA cycle times consistently exceed 60-day target | Insufficient resources allocated or unclear ownership | Escalate during management review; assign dedicated CAPA coordinator; break complex CAPAs into phased actions |
| Overdue CAPA rate exceeds 10% | Lack of automated tracking or reminder system | Implement automated alerts via QMS software; run weekly to identify aging items |
| Auditors cite "superficial root cause analysis" | Inadequate training on RCA methodologies | Conduct RCA methodology training for investigation teams; use templates from ; require evidence at each analysis step |
| Recurring issues despite closed CAPAs | Preventive actions not extended to similar processes | During action planning, explicitly assess all analogous processes; add preventive actions targeting systemic causes, not just the specific instance |
| Stakeholders disagree on CAPA severity classification | No standardized severity criteria applied | Use the CAPA Necessity Determination table and Severity definitions consistently; document classification rationale with objective evidence |
Success Criteria
- First-time effectiveness rate exceeds 90% -- verified through post-implementation data collection showing no recurrence during the verification window
- Average CAPA cycle time under 60 days -- measured from open date to close date across all severity levels, tracked via
metricscapa_tracker.py - Overdue rate maintained below 10% -- monitored through aging analysis with escalation triggers at 61-day and 90-day thresholds
- 100% of root causes validated with objective evidence -- every root cause passes the validation checklist (explains all symptoms, elimination prevents recurrence, within organizational control)
- All critical and major CAPAs include preventive actions -- corrective actions address the specific occurrence while preventive actions extend solutions to analogous processes
- Management review receives monthly CAPA status reports -- including open count by severity, overdue list, cycle time trends, and effectiveness rate trends
- Recurrence rate below 5% -- tracked by monitoring closed CAPAs for reappearance of the same issue type within 12 months of closure
Scope & Limitations
In Scope:
- CAPA investigation workflow from trigger event through closure
- Root cause analysis using 5-Why, Fishbone (6M), Fault Tree Analysis, Human Factors Analysis, and FMEA methodologies
- Corrective and preventive action planning, implementation tracking, and effectiveness verification
- CAPA metrics calculation, aging analysis, and management reporting
- Alignment with ISO 13485:2016 Clause 8.5 and FDA 21 CFR 820.100 requirements
Out of Scope:
- This skill does not replace a validated eQMS (electronic Quality Management System) for production CAPA tracking -- it provides analysis templates and metric calculations
- Statistical process control and advanced trend analysis requiring specialized SPC software
- Regulatory submission preparation (use
orfda-consultant-specialist
for submission-related CAPAs)mdr-745-specialist - Supplier CAPA management beyond internal investigation (use
for supplier qualification)quality-manager-qms-iso13485 - Clinical investigation CAPAs requiring medical/scientific expertise beyond procedural guidance
Important Notes:
- Under the FDA QMSR (effective February 2, 2026), CAPA requirements align with ISO 13485:2016 Clause 8.5 rather than the legacy 21 CFR 820.100 structure -- this skill covers both frameworks
- The
tool works with JSON input and does not connect to live QMS databases; export data from your eQMS for analysiscapa_tracker.py
Integration Points
| Skill | Integration | When to Use |
|---|---|---|
| CAPA findings feed into QMS process improvements and supplier corrective actions | When root cause involves QMS process gaps or supplier nonconformances |
| Audit findings are a primary CAPA source; CAPA closure evidence supports audit follow-up | When CAPAs originate from internal or external audit findings |
| CAPA outcomes update risk assessments; FMEA results may trigger preventive CAPAs | When root cause analysis reveals previously unassessed risks |
| FDA 483 observations and warning letters require formal CAPA responses | When CAPA originates from FDA inspection findings |
| EU MDR vigilance reports and FSCA may trigger CAPAs; CAPA data feeds PMS/PSUR | When post-market surveillance identifies safety or performance issues |
| Document control updates resulting from CAPA actions; 21 CFR Part 11 compliance for electronic CAPA records | When corrective actions require SOP revisions or new document creation |
Tool Reference
capa_tracker.py
Tracks CAPA status, calculates metrics, identifies overdue items, and generates management review reports.
| Flag | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Yes (unless or ) | Path to JSON file containing CAPA records |
| No | Launch interactive mode for manual CAPA entry |
| No | Output format: for machine-readable, default is human-readable text |
| No | Generate a sample CAPA JSON file to stdout for use as a template |
Calculated Metrics:
- Total, open, closed, and overdue CAPA counts
- Average cycle time (days from open to close)
- First-time effectiveness rate (effective on first verification / total verified)
- Status distribution, severity breakdown, and source analysis
- Aging report bucketed by 0-30, 31-60, 61-90, and 90+ days
- Overdue CAPA list with owners and days past target
Example:
# Generate sample data, then analyze python scripts/capa_tracker.py --sample > sample_capas.json python scripts/capa_tracker.py --capas sample_capas.json python scripts/capa_tracker.py --capas sample_capas.json --output json