Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

regulatory-affairs-head(监管事务主管)

regulatory-affairs-head 用于补充开发相关能力,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要让 Agent 承接开发相关任务时使用。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。

regulatory-affairs-head 是开发类 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,按安装量在开发类的 21,744 个 Skill 里排第 616。

总安装 69,107周安装 2,823GitHub Stars 1下载 22,358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:regulatory-affairs-head(监管事务主管)
来源仓库:https://github.com/alirezarezvani/regulatory-affairs-head
安装命令:
openclaw skills install regulatory-affairs-head
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 regulatory-affairs-head

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

regulatory-affairs-head 提供 FDA 申报材料和监管路径分析支持。适用于医疗器械公司准备 510(k)、De Novo 或 PMA 提交。输出技术文档结构、证据收集清单和审评要点预测。正式提交前需经法务和医学写作团队复核,确保表述准确。

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 regulatory-affairs-head;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

regulatory-affairs-head 怎么安装?

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

regulatory-affairs-head 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。

regulatory-affairs-head 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。

regulatory-affairs-head 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。

regulatory-affairs-head 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 69,107 次,近一周安装 2,823 次,下载 22,358 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。

regulatory-affairs-head 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。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、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。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
regulatory-affairs-head

监管事务主管 · 本页

69,1071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
regulatory-affairs-head
description
Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager for HealthTech and MedTech companies. Prepares FDA 510(k), De Novo, and PMA submission packages; analyzes regulatory pathways for new medical devices; drafts responses to FDA deficiency letters and Notified Body queries; develops CE marking technical documentation under EU MDR 2017/745; coordinates multi-market approval strategies across FDA, EU, Health Canada, PMDA, and NMPA; and maintains regulatory intelligence on evolving standards. Use when users need to plan or execute FDA submissions, navigate 510(k) or PMA approval processes, achieve CE marking, prepare pre-submission meeting materials, write regulatory strategy documents, respond to agency queries, or manage compliance documentation for medical device market access.
triggers

Head of Regulatory Affairs

Regulatory strategy development, submission management, and global market access for medical device organizations.


Table of Contents


Regulatory Strategy Workflow

Develop regulatory strategy aligned with business objectives and product characteristics.

Workflow: New Product Regulatory Strategy

  1. Gather product information:

- Intended use and indications - Device classification (risk level) - Technology platform - Target markets and timeline

  1. Identify applicable regulations per target market:

- FDA (US): 21 CFR Part 820, 510(k)/PMA/De Novo - EU: MDR 2017/745, Notified Body requirements - Other markets: Health Canada, PMDA, NMPA, TGA

  1. Determine optimal regulatory pathway:

- Compare submission types (510(k) vs De Novo vs PMA) - Assess predicate device availability - Evaluate clinical evidence requirements

  1. Develop regulatory timeline with milestones
  2. Estimate resource requirements and budget
  3. Identify regulatory risks and mitigation strategies
  4. Obtain stakeholder alignment and approval
  5. Validation: Strategy document approved; timeline accepted; resources allocated

Regulatory Pathway Selection Matrix

Factor510(k)De NovoPMA
Predicate AvailableYesNoN/A
Risk LevelLow-ModerateLow-ModerateHigh
Clinical DataUsually not requiredMay be requiredRequired
Review Time90 days (MDUFA)150 days180 days
User Fee~$22K (2024)~$135K~$440K
Best ForMe-too devicesNovel low-riskHigh-risk, novel

Regulatory Strategy Document Template

REGULATORY STRATEGY

Product: [Name]   Version: [X.X]   Date: [Date]

1. PRODUCT OVERVIEW
   Intended use: [One-sentence statement of intended patient population, body site, and clinical purpose]
   Device classification: [Class I / II / III]
   Technology: [Brief description, e.g., "AI-powered wound-imaging software, SaMD"]

2. TARGET MARKETS & TIMELINE
   | Market | Pathway        | Priority | Target Date |
   |--------|----------------|----------|-------------|
   | USA    | 510(k) / PMA   | 1        | Q1 20XX     |
   | EU     | Class [X] MDR  | 2        | Q2 20XX     |

3. REGULATORY PATHWAY RATIONALE
   FDA: [510(k) / De Novo / PMA] — Predicate: [K-number or "none"]
   EU:  Class [X] via [Annex IX / X / XI] — NB: [Name or TBD]
   Rationale: [2–3 sentences on key factors driving pathway choice]

4. CLINICAL EVIDENCE STRATEGY
   Requirements: [Summarize what each market needs, e.g., "510(k): bench + usability; EU Class IIb: PMCF study"]
   Approach: [Literature review / Prospective study / Combination]

5. RISKS AND MITIGATION
   | Risk                         | Prob | Impact | Mitigation                        |
   |------------------------------|------|--------|-----------------------------------|
   | Predicate delisted by FDA    | Low  | High   | Identify secondary predicate now  |
   | NB audit backlog             | Med  | Med    | Engage NB 6 months before target  |

6. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
   Budget: $[Amount]   Personnel: [FTEs]   External: [Consultants / CRO]

FDA Submission Workflow

Prepare and submit FDA regulatory applications.

Workflow: 510(k) Submission

  1. Confirm 510(k) pathway suitability:

- Predicate device identified (note K-number, e.g., K213456) - Substantial equivalence (SE) argument supportable on intended use and technological characteristics - No new intended use or technology concerns triggering De Novo

  1. Schedule and conduct Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) meeting if needed (see Pre-Sub Decision)
  2. Compile submission package checklist:

- [ ] Cover letter with device name, product code, and predicate K-number - [ ] Section 1: Administrative information (applicant, contact, 510(k) type) - [ ] Section 2: Device description — include photos, dimensions, materials list - [ ] Section 3: Intended use and indications for use - [ ] Section 4: Substantial equivalence comparison table (see example below) - [ ] Section 5: Performance testing — protocols, standards cited, pass/fail results - [ ] Section 6: Biocompatibility summary (ISO 10993-1 risk assessment, if patient contact) - [ ] Section 7: Software documentation (IEC 62304 level, cybersecurity per FDA guidance, if applicable) - [ ] Section 8: Labeling — final draft IFU, device label - [ ] Section 9: Summary and conclusion

  1. Conduct internal review and quality check against FDA RTA checklist
  2. Prepare eCopy per FDA format requirements (PDF bookmarked, eCopy cover page)
  3. Submit via FDA ESG portal with user fee payment
  4. Monitor MDUFA clock and respond to AI/RTA requests within deadlines
  5. Validation: Submission accepted; MDUFA date received; tracking system updated
Substantial Equivalence Comparison Example
CharacteristicPredicate (K213456)Subject DeviceSame?Notes
Intended useWound measurementWound measurement✓Identical
Technology2D camera2D + AI analysis✗New TC; address below
Energy typeNon-energizedNon-energized✓
Patient contactNoNo✓
SE conclusionNew TC does not raise new safety/effectiveness questions; bench data demonstrates equivalent accuracy (±2mm vs ±3mm predicate)

Workflow: PMA Submission

  1. Confirm PMA pathway:

- Class III device or no suitable predicate - Clinical data strategy defined

  1. Complete IDE clinical study if required:

- IDE approval - Clinical protocol execution - Study report completion

  1. Conduct Pre-Submission meeting
  2. Compile PMA submission checklist:

- [ ] Volume I: Administrative, device description, manufacturing - [ ] Volume II: Nonclinical studies (bench, animal, biocompatibility) - [ ] Volume III: Clinical studies (IDE protocol, data, statistical analysis) - [ ] Volume IV: Labeling - [ ] Volume V: Manufacturing information, sterilization

  1. Submit original PMA application
  2. Address FDA questions and deficiencies
  3. Prepare for FDA facility inspection
  4. Validation: PMA approved; approval letter received; post-approval requirements documented

FDA Submission Timeline

Milestone510(k)De NovoPMA
Pre-Sub MeetingDay -90Day -90Day -120
SubmissionDay 0Day 0Day 0
RTA ReviewDay 15Day 15Day 45
Substantive ReviewDays 15–90Days 15–150Days 45–180
DecisionDay 90Day 150Day 180

Common FDA Deficiencies and Prevention

CategoryCommon IssuesPrevention
Substantial EquivalenceWeak predicate comparison; no performance dataBuild SE table with data column; cite recognized standards
Performance TestingIncomplete protocols; missing worst-case rationaleFollow FDA-recognized standards; document worst-case justification
BiocompatibilityMissing endpoints; no ISO 10993-1 risk assessmentComplete ISO 10993-1 matrix before testing
SoftwareInadequate hazard analysis; no cybersecurity bill of materialsIEC 62304 compliance + FDA cybersecurity guidance checklist
LabelingInconsistent claims vs. IFU; missing symbols standardCross-check label against IFU; cite ISO 15223-1 for symbols

See: references/fda-submission-guide.md


EU MDR Submission Workflow

Achieve CE marking under EU MDR 2017/745.

Workflow: MDR Technical Documentation

  1. Confirm device classification per MDR Annex VIII
  2. Select conformity assessment route based on class:

- Class I: Self-declaration - Class IIa/IIb: Notified Body involvement - Class III: Full NB assessment

  1. Select and engage Notified Body (for Class IIa+) — see selection criteria below
  2. Compile Technical Documentation per Annex II checklist:

- [ ] Annex II §1: Device description, intended purpose, UDI - [ ] Annex II §2: Design and manufacturing information (drawings, BoM, process flows) - [ ] Annex II §3: GSPR checklist — each requirement mapped to evidence (standard, test report, or justification) - [ ] Annex II §4: Benefit-risk analysis and risk management file (ISO 14971) - [ ] Annex II §5: Product verification and validation (test reports) - [ ] Annex II §6: Post-market surveillance plan - [ ] Annex XIV: Clinical evaluation report (CER) — literature, clinical data, equivalence justification

  1. Establish and document QMS per ISO 13485
  2. Submit application to Notified Body
  3. Address NB questions and coordinate audit
  4. Validation: CE certificate issued; Declaration of Conformity signed; EUDAMED registration complete
GSPR Checklist Row Example
GSPR RefRequirementStandard / GuidanceEvidence DocumentStatus
Annex I §1Safe design and manufactureISO 14971:2019Risk Management File v2.1Complete
Annex I §11.1Devices with measuring function ±accuracyEN ISO 15223-1Performance Test Report PT-003Complete
Annex I §17CybersecurityMDCG 2019-16Cybersecurity Assessment CS-001In progress

Clinical Evidence Requirements by Class

ClassClinical RequirementDocumentation
IClinical evaluation (CE)CE report
IIaCE with literature focusCE report + PMCF plan
IIbCE with clinical dataCE report + PMCF + clinical study (some)
IIICE with clinical investigationCE report + PMCF + clinical investigation

Notified Body Selection Criteria

  • Scope: Designated for your specific device category
  • Capacity: Confirmed availability within target timeline
  • Experience: Track record with your technology type
  • Geography: Proximity for on-site audits
  • Cost: Fee structure transparency
  • Communication: Responsiveness and query turnaround

See: references/eu-mdr-submission-guide.md


Global Market Access Workflow

Coordinate regulatory approvals across international markets.

Workflow: Multi-Market Submission Strategy

  1. Define target markets based on business priorities
  2. Sequence markets for efficient evidence leverage:

- Phase 1: FDA + EU (reference markets) - Phase 2: Recognition markets (Canada, Australia) - Phase 3: Major markets (Japan, China) - Phase 4: Emerging markets

  1. Identify local requirements per market:

- Clinical data acceptability - Local agent/representative needs - Language and labeling requirements

  1. Develop master technical file with localization plan
  2. Establish in-country regulatory support
  3. Execute parallel or sequential submissions
  4. Track approvals and coordinate launches
  5. Validation: All target market approvals obtained; registration database updated

Market Priority Matrix

MarketSizeComplexityRecognitionPriority
USALargeHighN/A1
EULargeHighN/A1–2
CanadaMediumMediumMDSAP2
AustraliaMediumLowEU accepted2
JapanLargeHighLocal clinical3
ChinaLargeVery HighLocal testing3
BrazilMediumHighGMP inspection3–4

Documentation Efficiency Strategy

Document TypeSingle SourceLocalization Required
Technical file coreYesFormat adaptation
Risk managementYesNone
Clinical dataYesBridging assessment
QMS certificateYes (ISO 13485)Market-specific audit
LabelingMaster labelTranslation, local requirements
IFUMaster contentTranslation, local symbols

See: references/global-regulatory-pathways.md


Regulatory Intelligence Workflow

Monitor and respond to regulatory changes affecting product portfolio.

Workflow: Regulatory Change Management

  1. Monitor regulatory sources:

- FDA Federal Register, guidance documents - EU Official Journal, MDCG guidance - Notified Body communications - Industry associations (AdvaMed, MedTech Europe)

  1. Assess relevance to product portfolio
  2. Evaluate impact:

- Timeline to compliance - Resource requirements - Product changes needed

  1. Develop compliance action plan
  2. Communicate to affected stakeholders
  3. Implement required changes
  4. Document compliance status
  5. Validation: Compliance action plan approved; changes implemented on schedule

Regulatory Monitoring Sources

SourceTypeFrequency
FDA Federal RegisterRegulations, guidanceDaily
FDA Device Database510(k), PMA, recallsWeekly
EU Official JournalMDR/IVDR updatesWeekly
MDCG GuidanceEU implementationAs published
ISO/IECStandards updatesQuarterly
Notified BodyAudit findings, trendsPer interaction

Impact Assessment Template

REGULATORY CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Change: [Description]   Source: [Regulation/Guidance]
Effective Date: [Date]  Assessment Date: [Date]  Assessed By: [Name]

AFFECTED PRODUCTS
| Product | Impact (H/M/L) | Action Required        | Due Date |
|---------|----------------|------------------------|----------|
| [Name]  | [H/M/L]        | [Specific action]      | [Date]   |

COMPLIANCE ACTIONS
1. [Action] — Owner: [Name] — Due: [Date]
2. [Action] — Owner: [Name] — Due: [Date]

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS: Budget $[X]  |  Personnel [X] hrs

APPROVAL: Regulatory _____________ Date _______ / Management _____________ Date _______

Decision Frameworks

Pathway Selection and Classification Reference

FDA Pathway Selection

Is predicate device available?
            │
        Yes─┴─No
         │     │
         ▼     ▼
    Is device   Is risk level
    substantially  Low-Moderate?
    equivalent?       │
         │        Yes─┴─No
     Yes─┴─No      │     │
      │     │      ▼     ▼
      ▼     ▼   De Novo  PMA
    510(k)  Consider      required
           De Novo
           or PMA

EU MDR Classification

Is the device active?
        │
    Yes─┴─No
     │     │
     ▼     ▼
Is it an   Does it contact
implant?   the body?
  │            │
Yes─┴─No   Yes─┴─No
 │    │     │     │
 ▼    ▼     ▼     ▼
III  IIb  Check   Class I
         contact  (measuring/
         type     sterile if
         and      applicable)
         duration

Pre-Submission Meeting Decision

FactorSchedule Pre-SubSkip Pre-Sub
Novel Technology✓
New Intended Use✓
Complex Testing✓
Uncertain Predicate✓
Clinical Data Needed✓
Well-established✓
Clear Predicate✓
Standard Testing✓

Regulatory Escalation Criteria

SituationEscalation LevelAction
Submission rejectionVP RegulatoryRoot cause analysis, strategy revision
Major deficiencyDirectorCross-functional response team
Timeline at riskManagementResource reallocation review
Regulatory changeVP RegulatoryPortfolio impact assessment
Safety signalExecutiveImmediate containment and reporting

Tools and References

Scripts

ToolPurposeUsage
regulatory_tracker.pyTrack submission status and timelinespython regulatory_tracker.py

Regulatory Tracker Features:

  • Track multiple submissions across markets
  • Monitor status and target dates
  • Identify overdue submissions
  • Generate status reports

Example usage:

$ python regulatory_tracker.py --report status
Submission Status Report — 2024-11-01
┌──────────────────┬──────────┬────────────┬─────────────┬──────────┐
│ Product          │ Market   │ Type       │ Target Date │ Status   │
├──────────────────┼──────────┼────────────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│ WoundScan Pro    │ USA      │ 510(k)     │ 2024-12-01  │ On Track │
│ WoundScan Pro    │ EU       │ MDR IIb    │ 2025-03-01  │ At Risk  │
│ CardioMonitor X1 │ Canada   │ Class II   │ 2025-01-15  │ On Track │
└──────────────────┴──────────┴────────────┴─────────────┴──────────┘
1 submission at risk: WoundScan Pro EU — NB engagement not confirmed.

References

DocumentContent
fda-submission-guide.mdFDA pathways, requirements, review process
eu-mdr-submission-guide.mdMDR classification, technical documentation, clinical evidence
global-regulatory-pathways.mdCanada, Japan, China, Australia, Brazil requirements
iso-regulatory-requirements.mdISO 13485, 14971, 10993, IEC 62304, 62366 requirements

Key Performance Indicators

KPITargetCalculation
First-time approval rate>85%(Approved without major deficiency / Total submitted) × 100
On-time submission>90%(Submitted by target date / Total submissions) × 100
Review cycle compliance>95%(Responses within deadline / Total requests) × 100
Regulatory hold time<20%(Days on hold / Total review days) × 100

Related Skills

SkillIntegration Point
mdr-745-specialistDetailed EU MDR technical requirements
fda-consultant-specialistFDA submission deep expertise
quality-manager-qms-iso13485QMS for regulatory compliance
risk-management-specialistISO 14971 risk management

平台分布

OpenClaw

97.96%
按下载量换算21,902

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