Medical ai compliance gate
Skill NeuralMedic-DE/claude-skills/medical-ai-compliance-gate
Verified-gate Claude Code skills that run their checks and prove the result — by NeuralMedic. Web, accessibility, healthcare & compliance, data, IaC, Odoo.
npx -y skills add NeuralMedic-DE/claude-skills --skill medical-ai-compliance-gateAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Audit a medical/health-AI codebase or data pipeline against GDPR, EU MDR, ISO 27001, and SOC 2 — gated by automated checks that actually run. A stdlib Python scanner runs ~29 heuristics from a 47-control catalog (hardcoded secrets, PII/PHI in logs, encryption at rest, TLS, audit logging, retention/ erasure, RBAC, EU data residency, consent, model cards, data lineage, SBOM, dependency pinning, CI/tests/monitoring), maps each finding to its control + framework + severity, fails the build on blocking gaps, and sends the rest to a mandatory human attestation. Use for a compliance/readiness audit or gap analysis, a healthcare/medical-AI compliance checklist or CI gate, or a DPIA/RoPA starting point. Honest scope: engineering assistance to PREPARE for compliance — NOT legal advice, certification, an MDR conformity assessment/CE marking, or a Notified Body, ISO, or SOC 2 audit. Triggers: "GDPR", "MDR", "medical device software", "MDSW", "ISO 27001", "SOC 2", "compliance gate", "DPIA", "healthcare AI audit".
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
8.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Medical AI compliance gate (GDPR · MDR · ISO 27001 · SOC 2, verified)
Prepare a medical/health-AI system for compliance and prove the machine-decidable part — gaps are surfaced by a scanner that runs over the repo, fixed by severity, and re-scanned until green; then a mandatory human attestation completes the gate.
Core principle
Gaps are measured, not assumed. The loop is: scan → triage by severity → fix the cause → re-scan, until the automated gate is green; then complete the manual attestation before any readiness claim.
Be honest about scope (this is the rule that keeps the skill correct): this is
engineering assistance to prepare for compliance, nothing more. It is NOT
legal advice, NOT a regulatory certification, NOT an EU MDR conformity
assessment or CE marking, NOT a Notified Body audit, NOT an ISO 27001
certification, and NOT a SOC 2 attestation. MDR conformity for medical-device
software (MDSW) additionally requires a QMS (ISO 13485), risk management
(ISO 14971), a clinical evaluation, and — for most classes — a Notified Body, none
of which this replaces. Heuristics have false positives and negatives. Passing
the gate ≠ compliant. Never report "GDPR/MDR/ISO/SOC 2 compliant" on a green
scan — report "0 blocking automated controls; manual attestation
pending/complete." → references/01-frameworks-and-scope.md
When to use vs. not
- Use for: a compliance/readiness gap analysis of a health-AI codebase or data pipeline against GDPR / MDR / ISO 27001 / SOC 2; adding a compliance CI gate; drafting a DPIA / Records of Processing; preparing engineering evidence for an upcoming audit.
- Not for: obtaining an actual certification, CE mark, or audit opinion (those need external bodies); clinical validation or risk-management file authoring (regulatory program work); legal sign-off (needs counsel/DPO).
Inputs to gather first
- What to audit — path to the repo / pipeline (
targetDir), and what to skip (vendored code, build output). →references/03-running-the-scan.md - Which frameworks — default all four (
GDPR,MDR,ISO27001,SOC2); scope down if, e.g., the product isn't (yet) a medical device. →references/01-frameworks-and-scope.md - Is it MDSW? — does the software diagnose/treat/monitor/predict? That decides whether MDR applies and at what risk class (a regulatory call, not a code check).
- Gate bar — default blocks on
blockingonly; addmajorfor a release/ audit-readiness bar.
Workflow
Load each reference when you reach its step.
-
Set frameworks & scope; internalize the honest scope. Confirm which of the four apply, whether the software is MDSW, and that a green scan ≠ compliance. →
references/01-frameworks-and-scope.md -
Review the control catalog. 47 controls grouped by framework; ~29 are automated heuristics, the rest are manual attestations. →
references/02-control-catalog.md -
Configure and run the scan over the target repo; triage by severity. →
references/03-running-the-scan.mdcp scripts/compliance.config.example.json scripts/compliance.config.json # edit targetDir, frameworks, gateSeverities, ignore python3 scripts/compliance_scan.py --config scripts/compliance.config.json echo "exit code: $?" # 0 = gate green, 1 = blocking failure(s) -
Fix root causes — secrets out of source, PII out of logs, encryption/TLS/ RBAC/audit/retention config present, EU residency, ML artifacts (model card, lineage, SBOM, pinning). Re-scan after each fix. →
references/05-remediation-patterns.md -
Re-scan until green —
RESULT: PASSand exit 0 on your chosengateSeverities. A green run is necessary, not sufficient. →references/03-running-the-scan.md -
Draft the evidence the audit needs — Records of Processing, a DPIA, and the ISO/SOC 2 evidence index. →
references/04-evidence-and-dpia.md -
Complete the manual attestation — DPIA, DPAs, ISO 14971 risk file, clinical evaluation, QMS, access reviews, incident response, vendor management — reviewed and signed by the right humans. →
references/06-manual-attestation.md
What's in this skill
scripts/compliance_scan.py— the gate backbone: stdlib-only scanner that runs every automated heuristic overtargetDir, maps findings to control + framework + severity, writesreport.json+report.md, prints PASS/FAIL, and exits non-zero on blocking failures. Lists manual controls for attestation.scripts/controls.json— the 47-control catalog (GDPR / MDR / ISO 27001 / SOC 2), each{id, title, frameworks, severity, check, heuristic?, remediation}.scripts/compliance.config.example.json—targetDir,frameworks,gateSeverities,ignoreglobs,outDir.scripts/requirements.txt— intentionally dependency-free; the scan is standard-library Python 3.12.references/01–06— frameworks & honest scope, the control catalog, running/triaging the scan, evidence/RoPA/DPIA, remediation patterns, and the manual attestation with a sign-off record.
Definition of done
-
compliance_scan.pyreports 0 blocking automated controls on the chosengateSeverities, and exits 0, across the in-scope frameworks. - Every automated failure was fixed at the cause (not silenced); evidence
lines were checked, and any
ignore/scope exclusion has a written reason. -
major/minorfindings triaged into a backlog before external audit. - RoPA drafted; DPIA drafted and DPO-reviewed; ISO/SOC 2 evidence index started.
- Every
check:"manual"control attested by the right human, recorded in the sign-off block. - Report archived (CI artifact); result stated as "0 blocking automated controls; manual attestation complete" — not "compliant."
Guardrails — avoid these mistakes
- Don't claim "compliant" from a green scan. Overclaiming is the cardinal error here. State "0 blocking automated controls; manual attestation pending/complete." Compliance/certification requires external auditors, a Notified Body, and legal review — not this gate.
- A pass is a non-detection, not a guarantee. Heuristics miss things (false negatives) and flag innocents (false positives). Verify the cited evidence; the manual controls exist precisely because automation can't decide them.
- Don't game the gate — an empty
MODEL_CARD.mdor a.gitignoreline isn't evidence of a real control. Auditors see through evidence theatre. - Don't widen
gateSeveritiesor over-broadenignoreto go green. Fix the cause; reserve scoping for genuine non-applicability, with a reason. - MDR is about intended purpose, not tech. If the software diagnoses/treats/ predicts, it's likely MDSW — get regulatory/clinical input early; this gate only checks engineering artifacts exist.
- Never put real patient data in the repo — fixtures, seeds, and notebooks use synthetic data only; rotate any secret that was ever committed.