ra-qm-team/skills/risk-management-specialist/SKILL.md
Medical device risk management specialist implementing ISO 14971 throughout product lifecycle. Provides risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk control, and post-production information analysis. Use when user mentions risk management, ISO 14971, risk analysis, FMEA, fault tree analysis, hazard identification, risk control, risk matrix, benefit-risk analysis, residual risk, risk acceptability, or post-market risk.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills risk-management-specialistInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle.
Establish risk management process per ISO 14971.
| Section | Content | Evidence | |---------|---------|----------| | Scope | Device and lifecycle coverage | Scope statement | | Criteria | Risk acceptability matrix | Risk matrix document | | Responsibilities | Roles and authorities | RACI chart | | Verification | Methods and acceptance | Verification plan | | Production/Post-Production | Monitoring activities | Surveillance plan |
| Probability \ Severity | Negligible | Minor | Serious | Critical | Catastrophic | |------------------------|------------|-------|---------|----------|--------------| | Frequent (P5) | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable | Unacceptable | | Probable (P4) | Medium | Medium | High | High | Unacceptable | | Occasional (P3) | Low | Medium | Medium | High | High | | Remote (P2) | Low | Low | Medium | Medium | High | | Improbable (P1) | Low | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
| Level | Acceptable | Action Required | |-------|------------|-----------------| | Low | Yes | Document and accept | | Medium | ALARP | Reduce if practicable; document rationale | | High | ALARP | Reduction required; demonstrate ALARP | | Unacceptable | No | Design change mandatory |
Identify hazards and estimate risks systematically.
| Category | Examples | Analyzed | |----------|----------|----------| | Electrical | Shock, burns, interference | ☐ | | Mechanical | Crushing, cutting, entrapment | ☐ | | Thermal | Burns, tissue damage | ☐ | | Radiation | Ionizing, non-ionizing | ☐ | | Biological | Infection, biocompatibility | ☐ | | Chemical | Toxicity, irritation | ☐ | | Software | Incorrect output, timing | ☐ | | Use Error | Misuse, perception, cognition | ☐ | | Environment | EMC, mechanical stress | ☐ |
| Situation | Recommended Method | |-----------|-------------------| | Component failures | FMEA | | System-level failure | FTA | | Process deviations | HAZOP | | User interaction | Use Error Analysis | | Software behavior | Software FMEA | | Early design phase | PHA |
| Level | Name | Description | Frequency | |-------|------|-------------|-----------| | P5 | Frequent | Expected to occur | >10⁻³ | | P4 | Probable | Likely to occur | 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ | | P3 | Occasional | May occur | 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵ | | P2 | Remote | Unlikely | 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ | | P1 | Improbable | Very unlikely | <10⁻⁶ |
| Level | Name | Description | Harm | |-------|------|-------------|------| | S5 | Catastrophic | Death | Death | | S4 | Critical | Permanent impairment | Irreversible injury | | S3 | Serious | Injury requiring intervention | Reversible injury | | S2 | Minor | Temporary discomfort | No treatment needed | | S1 | Negligible | Inconvenience | No injury |
See: references/risk-analysis-methods.md
Evaluate risks against acceptability criteria.
Risk Estimated
│
▼
Apply Acceptability Criteria
│
├── Low Risk ──────────► Accept and document
│
├── Medium Risk ───────► Consider risk reduction
│ │ Document ALARP if not reduced
│ ▼
│ Practicable to reduce?
│ │
│ Yes──► Implement control
│ No───► Document ALARP rationale
│
├── High Risk ─────────► Risk reduction required
│ │ Must demonstrate ALARP
│ ▼
│ Implement control
│ Verify residual risk
│
└── Unacceptable ──────► Design change mandatory
Cannot proceed without control
| Criterion | Evidence Required | |-----------|-------------------| | Technical feasibility | Analysis of alternative controls | | Proportionality | Cost-benefit of further reduction | | State of the art | Comparison to similar devices | | Stakeholder input | Clinical/user perspectives |
| Situation | Benefit-Risk Required | |-----------|----------------------| | Residual risk remains high | Yes | | No feasible risk reduction | Yes | | Novel device | Yes | | Unacceptable risk with clinical benefit | Yes | | All risks low | No |
Implement and verify risk control measures.
| Priority | Control Type | Examples | Effectiveness | |----------|--------------|----------|---------------| | 1 | Inherent Safety | Eliminate hazard, fail-safe design | Highest | | 2 | Protective Measures | Guards, alarms, automatic shutdown | High | | 3 | Information | Warnings, training, IFU | Lower |
RISK CONTROL OPTION ANALYSIS
Hazard ID: H-[XXX]
Hazard: [Description]
Initial Risk: P[X] × S[X] = [Level]
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
| Option | Control Type | New Hazards | Feasibility | Selected |
|--------|--------------|-------------|-------------|----------|
| 1 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |
| 2 | [Type] | [Yes/No] | [H/M/L] | [Yes/No] |
SELECTED CONTROL: Option [X]
Rationale: [Justification for selection]
IMPLEMENTATION:
- Requirement: [REQ-XXX]
- Design Document: [Reference]
VERIFICATION:
- Method: [Test/Analysis/Review]
- Protocol: [Reference]
- Acceptance Criteria: [Criteria]
| Method | When to Use | Evidence | |--------|-------------|----------| | Test | Quantifiable performance | Test report | | Inspection | Physical presence | Inspection record | | Analysis | Design calculation | Analysis report | | Review | Documentation check | Review record |
| After Control | Action | |---------------|--------| | Acceptable | Document, proceed | | ALARP achieved | Document rationale, proceed | | Still unacceptable | Additional control or design change | | New hazard introduced | Analyze and control new hazard |
Monitor and update risk management throughout product lifecycle.
| Source | Information Type | Review Frequency | |--------|------------------|------------------| | Complaints | Use issues, failures | Continuous | | Service | Field failures, repairs | Monthly | | Vigilance | Serious incidents | Immediate | | Literature | Similar device issues | Quarterly | | Regulatory | Authority feedback | As received | | Clinical | PMCF data | Per plan |
| Trigger | Response Time | Action | |---------|---------------|--------| | Serious incident | Immediate | Full risk review | | New hazard identified | 30 days | Risk analysis update | | Trend increase | 60 days | Trend analysis | | Design change | Before implementation | Impact assessment | | Standards update | Per transition period | Gap analysis |
| Review Element | Frequency | |----------------|-----------| | Risk management file completeness | Annual | | Risk control effectiveness | Annual | | Post-market information analysis | Quarterly | | Risk-benefit conclusions | Annual or on new data |
→ See references/risk-assessment-templates.md for details
What is the risk level?
│
├── Unacceptable ──► Can hazard be eliminated?
│ │
│ Yes─┴─No
│ │ │
│ ▼ ▼
│ Eliminate Can protective
│ hazard measure reduce?
│ │
│ Yes─┴─No
│ │ │
│ ▼ ▼
│ Add Add warning
│ protection + training
│
└── High/Medium ──► Apply hierarchy
starting at Level 1
| Question | If Yes | If No | |----------|--------|-------| | Does control introduce new hazard? | Analyze new hazard | Proceed | | Is new risk higher than original? | Reject control option | Acceptable trade-off | | Can new hazard be controlled? | Add control | Reject control option |
| Condition | Decision | |-----------|----------| | All risks Low | Acceptable | | Medium risks with ALARP | Acceptable | | High risks with ALARP documented | Acceptable if benefits outweigh | | Any Unacceptable residual | Not acceptable - redesign |
| Tool | Purpose | Usage |
|------|---------|-------|
| risk_matrix_calculator.py | Calculate risk levels and FMEA RPN | python risk_matrix_calculator.py --help |
Risk Matrix Calculator Features:
| Document | Content | |----------|---------| | iso14971-implementation-guide.md | Complete ISO 14971:2019 implementation with templates | | risk-analysis-methods.md | FMEA, FTA, HAZOP, Use Error Analysis methods |
| Stage | Key Activities | Output | |-------|----------------|--------| | Planning | Define scope, criteria, responsibilities | Risk Management Plan | | Analysis | Identify hazards, estimate risk | Hazard Analysis | | Evaluation | Compare to criteria, ALARP assessment | Risk Evaluation | | Control | Implement hierarchy, verify | Risk Control Records | | Residual | Overall assessment, benefit-risk | Risk Management Report | | Production | Monitor, review, update | Updated RM File |
| Skill | Integration Point | |-------|-------------------| | quality-manager-qms-iso13485 | QMS integration | | capa-officer | Risk-based CAPA | | regulatory-affairs-head | Regulatory submissions | | quality-documentation-manager | Risk file management |
data-ai
Use when you want to understand what Claude contributed vs what you drove in a session. Triggers on: /collab-proof, session retrospective, ai contribution analysis, collaboration evidence, what did claude do.
data-ai
Personal coach that teaches users to become Claude power users. Use this skill the FIRST time a user asks to "learn Claude", "be a power user", "coach me", "teach me Claude tricks", "what can Claude do", "make me better at prompting", or any variation. After activation, also use it on EVERY subsequent turn to detect missed optimization opportunities (vague prompts, ignored capabilities, manual work Claude could automate) and surface a single power-user tip. Trigger generously — most users do not know what they do not know, so err on the side of coaching.
development
Use when designing or revisiting product pricing — selecting a pricing model (subscription seat-based, usage-based, value-based, freemium, or hybrid), running Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter analysis on WTP survey data, or designing Good/Better/Best packaging tiers. Recommends a model and a price range with trade-offs, never a single number. For Commercial leads, Product Marketing, and CMOs at the pricing-design moment — not deal-by-deal discounting, not brand positioning.
testing
Use when a startup is approached by a prospective partner and someone has to decide should we sign this partner, at what partner tier (referral / reseller / OEM / SI-consulting / strategic alliance), with what joint GTM commitment, and at what revshare. Classifies partner tier from independent-demand evidence vs. preferential-terms hunting, designs a 90-day joint GTM plan, models revshare against direct-sale margin, and surfaces kill criteria for unwinding under-performing partnerships. For Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs doing reseller agreement, OEM deal, or strategic alliance review — not technical sale enablement, not channel cost economics, not M&A.