Now liveThe Skillselion MCP - thousands of ranked skills, loaded into your agent mid-task. No install.Get it →
alirezarezvani avatar

Regulatory Affairs Head

  • 789 installs
  • 23.5k repo stars
  • Updated July 17, 2026
  • alirezarezvani/claude-skills

regulatory-affairs-head is a Claude skill that structures EU MDR 2017/745 device classification, conformity assessment routes, and Annex II technical documentation for medical device software or hardware products seeking

About

regulatory-affairs-head is a Claude skill providing an EU MDR 2017/745 submission guide for medical device software and hardware products. It covers MDR classification across Class I self-certification under Annex II, Class IIa notified-body routes under Annex III Module C2 plus Annex V, and Class IIb certification under Annex III Module B plus C or D with type or full quality assurance examination. The skill addresses technical documentation per Annex II, Declaration of Conformity, UDI registration, quality management system assessment, and ongoing surveillance requirements. Developers and regulatory engineers reach for regulatory-affairs-head when structuring SaMD or hardware technical files, selecting conformity paths, or preparing notified-body submissions under EU MDR 2017/745.

  • Maps EU MDR Class I through Class III devices to self-certification vs notified-body assessment routes
  • Lists Annex II technical documentation elements including risk management and clinical evidence hooks
  • Ties quality management expectations to ISO 13485 and integrated design and surveillance controls
  • Summarizes clinical evaluation plan requirements under Annex XIV for evidence planning
  • Separates conformity pathways by annex modules (e.g., II, III, V) for class-appropriate depth

Regulatory Affairs Head by the numbers

  • 789 all-time installs (skills.sh)
  • +5 installs in the week ending Jul 28, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
  • Ranked #428 of 2,203 Security skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
  • Security screen: MEDIUM risk (skills.sh audit)
  • Data as of Jul 31, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill regulatory-affairs-head

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

Listed on Skillselion
Installs789
repo stars23.5k
Security audit2 / 3 scanners passed
Last updatedJuly 17, 2026
Repositoryalirezarezvani/claude-skills

How do you structure EU MDR Annex II technical files?

Structure EU MDR 2017/745 classification, conformity routes, and Annex II technical documentation for a medical device software or hardware product.

Who is it for?

Developers and regulatory engineers preparing EU MDR 2017/745 submissions for medical device software or hardware requiring CE marking documentation.

Skip if: Non-medical software products, US FDA-only pathways, or teams without regulatory obligation to EU MDR 2017/745 conformity.

When should I use this skill?

A medical device software or hardware product needs EU MDR 2017/745 classification, conformity route selection, or Annex II technical documentation structuring.

What you get

MDR device classification, conformity assessment route selection, Annex II technical documentation outlines, and Declaration of Conformity checklists.

  • MDR classification rationale
  • Annex II technical documentation outline
  • Conformity assessment route plan

By the numbers

  • Covers 3 MDR device classes: Class I, Class IIa, and Class IIb conformity routes
  • References Annex II technical documentation and Annex III conformity modules

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

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

2. 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

3. Determine optimal regulatory pathway:

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

4. Develop regulatory timeline with milestones 5. Estimate resource requirements and budget 6. Identify regulatory risks and mitigation strategies 7. Obtain stakeholder alignment and approval 8. 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

2. Schedule and conduct Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) meeting if needed (see Pre-Sub Decision) 3. 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

4. Conduct internal review and quality check against FDA RTA checklist 5. Prepare eCopy per FDA format requirements (PDF bookmarked, eCopy cover page) 6. Submit via FDA ESG portal with user fee payment 7. Monitor MDUFA clock and respond to AI/RTA requests within deadlines 8. Validation: Submission accepted; MDUFA date received; tracking system updated

Substantial Equivalence Comparison Example
CharacteristicPredicate (K213456)Subject DeviceSame?Notes
Intended useWound measurementWound measurementIdentical
Technology2D camera2D + AI analysisNew 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

2. Complete IDE clinical study if required:

  • IDE approval
  • Clinical protocol execution
  • Study report completion

3. Conduct Pre-Submission meeting 4. 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

5. Submit original PMA application 6. Address FDA questions and deficiencies 7. Prepare for FDA facility inspection 8. 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

3. Select and engage Notified Body (for Class IIa+) — see selection criteria below 4. 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

5. Establish and document QMS per ISO 13485 6. Submit application to Notified Body 7. Address NB questions and coordinate audit 8. 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

3. Identify local requirements per market:

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

4. Develop master technical file with localization plan 5. Establish in-country regulatory support 6. Execute parallel or sequential submissions 7. Track approvals and coordinate launches 8. 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)

2. Assess relevance to product portfolio 3. Evaluate impact:

  • Timeline to compliance
  • Resource requirements
  • Product changes needed

4. Develop compliance action plan 5. Communicate to affected stakeholders 6. Implement required changes 7. Document compliance status 8. 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

Related skills

How it compares

Pick regulatory-affairs-head over generic documentation skills when submissions must follow EU MDR 2017/745 medical device conformity paths.

FAQ

Which EU regulation does regulatory-affairs-head cover?

regulatory-affairs-head addresses EU MDR 2017/745 for medical device software and hardware. It structures classification, conformity assessment routes, Annex II technical documentation, Declaration of Conformity, and UDI registration requirements.

What device classes does regulatory-affairs-head address?

regulatory-affairs-head covers Class I self-certification under Annex II, Class IIa notified-body routes under Annex III Module C2 plus Annex V, and Class IIb routes under Annex III Module B plus C or D with type or full quality assurance.

Is Regulatory Affairs Head safe to install?

skills.sh reports 2 of 3 security scanners passed. Review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing in production.

Securitycomplianceaudit

This week in AI coding

Five minutes, every Monday - the tools, releases and tactics for developers.

unsubscribe anytime.