# Meddev Document Review

> Expert review, editing, and drafting of medical device registration, FDA submission, EU MDR technical documentation, clinical evaluation, risk management, standards compliance, labeling, IFU, software, cybersecurity, usability, PMS/PMCF, and client regulatory documents. Use when the user provides documents, excerpts, tables, protocols, reports, submissions, deficiency letters, reviewer questions, or draft claims and asks for professional comments, modification suggestions, redlines, gap analysis, writing, rewriting, translation-polishing, audit-style review, or document package preparation.

- Skill: `halseyyang/meddev-document-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 31 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add halseyyang/meddev-document-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/halseyyang/meddev-document-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: halseyyang (https://skillmd.com/u/halseyyang)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/halseyyang/meddev-document-review

---


# MedDev Document Review

Use this skill to review client materials like a senior medical device registration consultant: precise, constructive, regulation-grounded, and ready for document revision.

## Review Workflow

1. Identify document type and purpose.
   - Examples: 510(k) summary, De Novo/PMA module, BDD request, Q-Sub package, technical documentation, GSPR checklist, CER, CEP, PMCF plan/report, PMS plan/report, risk file, V&V report, software documentation, cybersecurity file, usability file, IFU, labeling, clinical protocol, response to questions.

2. Establish review basis.
   - Jurisdiction, pathway/class, intended use, device type, applicable standards/guidance, submission stage, and client objective.
   - If missing, state assumptions and review against likely expectations.
   - For registration-related review, search the configured ima medical-device knowledge bases as a private reference source before or alongside public sources. See `references/ima-knowledge-base.md`.

3. Review for substance.
   - Completeness, consistency, regulatory logic, evidence sufficiency, standards alignment, risk controls, claims support, traceability, and reviewer readability.
   - Use `references/review-checklists.md` for targeted checks.

4. Mark issues by priority.
   - Critical: likely to block submission, create wrong pathway/classification, unsupported safety/performance claim, or major evidence gap.
   - Major: likely reviewer question, inconsistency, missing rationale, weak evidence linkage, or unclear compliance claim.
   - Minor: wording, formatting, organization, terminology, or non-blocking clarity issue.

5. Provide revision-ready output.
   - Give exact comments, suggested wording, table fixes, missing evidence, and next actions.
   - When asked, rewrite the section in polished regulatory language.

## Output Patterns

For document review:

| Priority | Section | Issue | Why It Matters | Suggested Revision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

For gap analysis:

| Requirement/Expectation | Current Evidence | Gap | Risk | Action |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

For drafting:

1. Draft text
2. Rationale
3. Assumptions
4. Source/evidence needed

For deficiency responses:

1. FDA/NB question restatement
2. Root issue
3. Response strategy
4. Proposed response text
5. Supporting attachments/evidence

## Writing Style

- Use professional regulatory language: specific, evidence-linked, non-defensive, and reviewer-friendly.
- Avoid vague claims like "safe and effective" without evidence.
- Prefer "The provided evidence supports..." over overconfident conclusions.
- Separate facts, interpretation, and recommended edits.
- In Chinese tasks, write polished Chinese suitable for consulting deliverables; keep regulatory terms bilingual when useful.

## Quality Rules

- Never fabricate standards clauses, guidance text, study findings, or document contents.
- Flag source/status uncertainty when references are not supplied.
- Preserve client intent while tightening claims and evidence linkage.
- Highlight cross-document inconsistencies, especially intended use, indications, device description, risk controls, V&V, clinical evidence, labeling, and claims.
- For formal documents, recommend adding traceability tables where evidence and requirements are not clearly linked.

## References

- `references/review-checklists.md`: Review checks by document type.
- `references/comment-style.md`: Comment phrasing, priority definitions, and rewrite patterns.
- `references/ima-knowledge-base.md`: Tencent ima medical-device knowledge-base IDs, citation discipline, and search command.
- `references/desktop-review-pack/`: Imported desktop reference pack for MDR PMS/PSUR, MDR technical-file audits, ISO 13485 QMS audits, CAPA, document control, CSV documentation, and ISO 14971 risk management. Read selectively when reviewing those document types.