Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

capa-officer(卡帕官员)

capa-officer 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 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。

capa-officer 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为只读;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 2,702。

总安装 55,966周安装 2,264GitHub Stars 1下载 17,569核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
2.1.1

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/alirezarezvani/capa-officer
安装命令:
openclaw skills install 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 OpenClaw 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。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install capa-officer

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

医疗器械质量管理体系中的纠正与预防措施管理。支持根本原因分析、措施计划与有效性验证。生成 CAPA 报告与关键绩效指标追踪。适用于合规审计与质量事件闭环管理场景。capa-officer 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。输出内容应符合行业法规与内部流程要求。

适用宿主包括 OpenClaw,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install capa-officer;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

capa-officer 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install capa-officer。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

capa-officer 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

capa-officer 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。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。

capa-officer 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

capa-officer 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 55,966 次,近一周安装 2,264 次,下载 17,569 次,GitHub 1 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

capa-officer 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
capa-officer

卡帕官员 · 本页

55,9661只读MIT-0通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
capa-officer
description
CAPA system management for medical device QMS. Covers root cause analysis, corrective action planning, effectiveness verification, and CAPA metrics. Use for CAPA investigations, 5-Why analysis, fishbone diagrams, root cause determination, corrective action tracking, effectiveness verification, or CAPA program optimization.
triggers

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

平台分布

OpenClaw

92.01%
按下载量换算16,165

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

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。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills