Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

capa-officer卡帕官员

Agent Skill

capa-officer 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

1,972

周安装

83

GitHub Stars

103

下载量

691
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:capa-officer(卡帕官员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/capa-officer
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill capa-officer
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill capa-officer

简介

系统化处理纠正与预防措施(CAPA),从问题触发到效果验证闭环管理。

  • 提供根因分析工具与行动计划模板,支持 ISO 质量管理体系合规。
  • 输出 CAPA 状态看板与延期预警机制。
  • 重大质量问题必须保留原始证据链,不可随意删除或修改记录。
  • capa-officer 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

CAPA 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

Conduct systematic CAPA investigation from initiation through closure:

  1. Document trigger event with objective evidence
  2. Assess significance and determine CAPA necessity
  3. Form investigation team with relevant expertise
  4. Collect data and evidence systematically
  5. Select and apply appropriate RCA methodology
  6. Identify root cause(s) with supporting evidence
  7. Develop corrective and preventive actions
  8. Validation: Root cause explains all symptoms; if eliminated, problem would not recur

CAPA Necessity Determination

Trigger TypeCAPA RequiredCriteria
Customer complaint (safety)YesAny complaint involving patient/user safety
Customer complaint (quality)EvaluateBased on severity and frequency
Internal audit finding (Major)YesSystematic failure or absence of element
Internal audit finding (Minor)RecommendedIsolated lapse or partial implementation
Nonconformance (recurring)YesSame NC type occurring 3+ times
Nonconformance (isolated)EvaluateBased on severity and risk
External audit findingYesAll Major and Minor findings
Trend analysisEvaluateBased on trend significance

Investigation Team Composition

CAPA SeverityRequired Team Members
CriticalCAPA Officer, Process Owner, QA Manager, Subject Matter Expert, Management Rep
MajorCAPA Officer, Process Owner, Subject Matter Expert
MinorCAPA 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)

CategoryFocus AreasTypical Causes
Man (People)Training, competency, workloadSkill gaps, fatigue, communication
Machine (Equipment)Calibration, maintenance, ageWear, malfunction, inadequate capacity
Method (Process)Procedures, work instructionsUnclear steps, missing controls
MaterialSpecifications, suppliers, storageOut-of-spec, degradation, contamination
MeasurementCalibration, methods, interpretationInstrument error, wrong method
Mother NatureTemperature, humidity, cleanlinessEnvironmental 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:

  1. Define immediate containment actions
  2. Develop corrective actions targeting root cause
  3. Identify preventive actions for similar processes
  4. Assign responsibilities and resources
  5. Establish timeline with milestones
  6. Define success criteria and verification method
  7. Document in CAPA action plan
  8. Validation: Actions directly address root cause; success criteria are measurable

Action Types

TypePurposeTimelineExample
ContainmentStop immediate impact24-72 hoursQuarantine affected product
CorrectionFix the specific occurrence1-2 weeksRework or replace affected items
CorrectiveEliminate root cause30-90 daysRevise procedure, add controls
PreventivePrevent in other areas60-120 daysExtend 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

IndicatorTargetRed Flag
Action scopeAddresses root cause completelyTreats only symptoms
SpecificityMeasurable deliverablesVague commitments
TimelineAggressive but achievableNo due dates or unrealistic
ResourcesIdentified and allocatedNot specified
SustainabilityPermanent solutionTemporary fix

Effectiveness Verification

Verify corrective actions achieved intended results:

  1. Allow adequate implementation period (minimum 30-90 days)
  2. Collect post-implementation data
  3. Compare to pre-implementation baseline
  4. Evaluate against success criteria
  5. Verify no recurrence during verification period
  6. Document verification evidence
  7. Determine CAPA effectiveness
  8. Validation: All criteria met with objective evidence; no recurrence observed

Verification Timeline Guidelines

CAPA SeverityWait PeriodVerification Window
Critical30 days30-90 days post-implementation
Major60 days60-180 days post-implementation
Minor90 days90-365 days post-implementation

Verification Methods

MethodUse WhenEvidence Required
Data trend analysisQuantifiable issuesPre/post comparison, trend charts
Process auditProcedure compliance issuesAudit checklist, interview notes
Record reviewDocumentation issuesSample records, compliance rate
Testing/inspectionProduct quality issuesTest results, pass/fail data
Interview/observationTraining issuesInterview 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

MetricTargetCalculation
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 quality100% root cause validatedRoot causes validated / Total CAPAs

Aging Analysis Categories

Age BucketStatusAction Required
0-30 daysOn trackMonitor progress
31-60 daysMonitorReview for delays
61-90 daysWarningEscalate to management
>90 daysCriticalManagement 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-clauseRequirementKey Activities
8.5.2 Corrective ActionEliminate cause of nonconformityNC review, cause determination, action evaluation, implementation, effectiveness review
8.5.3 Preventive ActionEliminate potential nonconformityTrend 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

ObservationRoot Cause Pattern
CAPA not initiated for recurring issueTrend analysis not performed
Root cause analysis superficialInadequate investigation training
Effectiveness not verifiedNo verification procedure
Actions do not address root causeSymptom treatment vs. cause elimination

Troubleshooting

ProblemPossible CauseResolution
Root cause analysis yields only symptomsInvestigation stopped too early or used wrong RCA methodApply the RCA Method Selection Decision Tree; ensure at least 5 levels of "why" with evidence at each level
CAPA effectiveness verification fails repeatedlyCorrective action addresses symptoms, not true root causeRe-open investigation, consider hybrid RCA approach (e.g., Fishbone + 5-Why), involve additional subject matter experts
CAPA cycle times consistently exceed 60-day targetInsufficient resources allocated or unclear ownershipEscalate during management review; assign dedicated CAPA coordinator; break complex CAPAs into phased actions
Overdue CAPA rate exceeds 10%Lack of automated tracking or reminder systemImplement automated alerts via QMS software; run python scripts/capa_tracker.py --capas capas.json weekly to identify aging items
Auditors cite "superficial root cause analysis"Inadequate training on RCA methodologiesConduct RCA methodology training for investigation teams; use templates from references/rca-methodologies.md; require evidence at each analysis step
Recurring issues despite closed CAPAsPreventive actions not extended to similar processesDuring action planning, explicitly assess all analogous processes; add preventive actions targeting systemic causes, not just the specific instance
Stakeholders disagree on CAPA severity classificationNo standardized severity criteria appliedUse 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 capa_tracker.py metrics
  • 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 fda-consultant-specialist or mdr-745-specialist for submission-related CAPAs)
  • Supplier CAPA management beyond internal investigation (use quality-manager-qms-iso13485 for supplier qualification)
  • 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 capa_tracker.py tool works with JSON input and does not connect to live QMS databases; export data from your eQMS for analysis

Integration Points

SkillIntegrationWhen to Use
quality-manager-qms-iso13485CAPA findings feed into QMS process improvements and supplier corrective actionsWhen root cause involves QMS process gaps or supplier nonconformances
qms-audit-expertAudit findings are a primary CAPA source; CAPA closure evidence supports audit follow-upWhen CAPAs originate from internal or external audit findings
risk-management-specialistCAPA outcomes update risk assessments; FMEA results may trigger preventive CAPAsWhen root cause analysis reveals previously unassessed risks
fda-consultant-specialistFDA 483 observations and warning letters require formal CAPA responsesWhen CAPA originates from FDA inspection findings
mdr-745-specialistEU MDR vigilance reports and FSCA may trigger CAPAs; CAPA data feeds PMS/PSURWhen post-market surveillance identifies safety or performance issues
quality-documentation-managerDocument control updates resulting from CAPA actions; 21 CFR Part 11 compliance for electronic CAPA recordsWhen 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.

FlagRequiredDescription
--capas <file>Yes (unless --interactive or --sample)Path to JSON file containing CAPA records
--interactiveNoLaunch interactive mode for manual CAPA entry
--output <format>NoOutput format: json for machine-readable, default is human-readable text
--sampleNoGenerate 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

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

35.89%
按下载量换算248

Claude

30.94%
按下载量换算214

Cursor

20.29%
按下载量换算140

Gemini CLI

9.91%
按下载量换算68

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills