artifacts/bundle/skills/ra-qm-team/risk-management-specialist/SKILL.md
# Risk Management Specialist ISO 14971:2019 risk management implementation throughout the medical device lifecycle. --- ## Table of Contents - [Risk Management Planning Workflow](#risk-management-planning-workflow) - [Risk Analysis Workflow](#risk-analysis-workflow) - [Risk Evaluation Workflow](#risk-evaluation-workflow) - [Risk Control Workflow](#risk-control-workflow) - [Post-Production Risk Management](#post-production-risk-management) - [Risk Assessment Templates](#risk-assessment-templa
npx skillsauth add neekware/ehayeskills artifacts/bundle/skills/ra-qm-team/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 |
Creator: Ra Qm Team License: MIT Source Repo:
neekware/ehaye-skillsSource Bucket:ra-qm-teamOriginal Path:ra-qm-team/risk-management-specialist
tools
# ehAye Multimedia Use this skill for **video, audio, images, media conversion, previews, transcription, thumbnails, frame extraction, Spotter visual search, or FFmpeg-backed processing**. Core rule: use ehAye native media tools first. Do not reach first for shell `ffmpeg`, `ffprobe`, Python, or `mediainfo` when a native media tool can do the job. Native tools use bundled engines, show proper tool UI, respect cancellation/timeouts, integrate with Preview/Spotter, and avoid cross-platform shell
development
Test-driven development skill for writing unit tests, generating test fixtures and mocks, analyzing coverage gaps, and guiding red-green-refactor workflows across Jest, Pytest, JUnit, Vitest, and Mocha. Use when the user asks to write tests, improve test coverage, practice TDD, generate mocks or stubs, or mentions testing frameworks like Jest, pytest, or JUnit. Handles test generation from source code, coverage report parsing (LCOV/JSON/XML), quality scoring, and framework conversion for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, and Java projects.
tools
Help a user set up Telegram for ehAye Dojo. Default to Personal private bots (recommended). Group setup is advanced for teams/observers/demos.
development
# Writing Skills ## Overview **Writing skills IS Test-Driven Development applied to process documentation.** **Personal skills live in agent-specific directories (`~/.claude/skills` for Claude Code, `~/.agents/skills/` for Codex)** You write test cases (pressure scenarios with subagents), watch them fail (baseline behavior), write the skill (documentation), watch tests pass (agents comply), and refactor (close loopholes). **Core principle:** If you didn't watch an agent fail without the ski