executing-plans
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
510k-premarket-notificationDrafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions.
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
name: 510k-premarket-notification language: en description: Drafts FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification submissions demonstrating substantial equivalence under 21 CFR Part 807. Supports Traditional, Special, and Abbreviated pathways. Use when preparing Class II medical device regulatory filings, substantial equivalence analyses, or FDA premarket submissions. tags:
Drafts a complete 510(k) submission package demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device under 21 CFR Part 807, Subpart E.
Gather before drafting:
Address to appropriate CDRH division. Include device trade name + common name, 510(k) type, predicate (name, manufacturer, K-number), pathway justification (why 510(k) vs. PMA), submitter contact with establishment registration, and U.S. agent if foreign manufacturer.
Complete all fields: applicant legal name and FDA registration number, trade name + common name, product code / regulation number / panel / class, submission type (original or resubmission with prior K-number), 510(k) type, disclosure election (Summary or Statement), contact info, and signature block with authorized representative.
Enable reviewer comprehension without physical examination:
Reference engineering drawings, cross-sections, and annotated photos.
Critical: IU language must be identical across labeling, submission, and Form 3514. Any divergence from predicate IU requires justification. Every indication must be supported by performance data.
Present as side-by-side table comparing subject vs. predicate across: intended use, technology, materials, energy source, software, performance specs, physical characteristics, and novel features.
For each parameter, state Same or Different with analysis. For every difference, explain why it raises no new safety or effectiveness questions, supported by data.
Split predicate: If using multiple predicates, justify. At least one must share the same intended use.
Present in order:
Each data set must link to a specific SE comparison point or IFU claim.
Required components (21 CFR Part 801):
IFU indications must exactly match submission indications.
Per 21 CFR 807.87(k). Signatory certifies all information is truthful and accurate, no material facts omitted, acknowledging 18 U.S.C. § 1001 penalties. Include printed name, title, signature, and date. Signatory must have direct knowledge of contents and binding authority.
Summary (21 CFR 807.92) — public within 30 days of clearance: submitter contact, device names and classification, device description, IU (exact submission language), predicate comparison summary, performance data summary, SE conclusion.
Statement (21 CFR 807.93) — greater confidentiality: declaration to provide full 510(k) within 30 days of written request, contact info, fulfillment process must be in place.
Key changes made: