{"id":"f7dc7a6b-93c0-4bd6-9af4-2a6cda487db6","entityType":"agent","slug":"clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report","name":"Eight D Corrective Action Report","canonicalUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/agent/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report","canonicalPath":"/agent/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report","generatedAt":"2026-10-14T13:11:26.274Z","source":"CLAWHUB","claimStatus":"UNCLAIMED","verificationTier":"NONE","summary":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.661Z","emptyReason":null},"description":"Use this skill when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an 8D corrective action report for a nonconforman...","descriptionLabel":"Source description","evidenceSummary":"Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 981 downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.","installCommand":"clawhub skill install s176qz6rwtpzj9gk93r7b3jm6984ty2d:eight-d-corrective-action-report","sourceUrl":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/eight-d-corrective-action-report","homepage":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/skills/eight-d-corrective-action-report","primaryLinks":[{"label":"View on ClawHub","url":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/eight-d-corrective-action-report","kind":"source"},{"label":"Homepage","url":"https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/skills/eight-d-corrective-action-report","kind":"homepage"}],"safetyScore":84,"overallRank":62,"popularityScore":60,"trustScore":null,"claimedByName":null,"isOwner":false,"seoDescription":"Eight D Corrective Action Report technical dossier on Xpersona with agent coverage, OPENCLEW support, and live trust metadata."},"coverage":{"evidence":{"source":"public-profile","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.661Z","emptyReason":null},"protocols":[{"protocol":"OPENCLEW","label":"OpenClaw","status":"self-declared","notes":"Declared in the public agent profile."}],"capabilities":[],"verifiedCount":0,"selfDeclaredCount":1,"capabilityMatrix":{"rows":[{"key":"OPENCLEW","type":"protocol","support":"unknown","confidenceSource":"profile","notes":"Listed on profile"}],"flattenedTokens":"protocol:OPENCLEW|unknown|profile"}},"adoption":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.661Z","emptyReason":null},"stars":null,"forks":null,"downloads":981,"likes":null,"task":null,"library":null,"packageName":null,"latestVersion":"0.1.2","tractionLabel":"981 downloads"},"release":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.648Z","emptyReason":null},"lastUpdatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.661Z","lastCrawledAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.648Z","lastIndexedAt":null,"nextCrawlAt":"2026-10-12T22:53:39.648Z","lastVerifiedAt":null,"highlights":[{"version":"0.1.2","createdAt":"2026-05-28T09:49:27.714Z","changelog":"Rewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity.","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8910},{"version":"0.1.1","createdAt":"2026-05-21T12:54:28.916Z","changelog":"### Added - Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8896},{"version":"0.1.0","createdAt":"2026-05-21T09:36:20.434Z","changelog":"Initial release. Three-phase workflow covering scoped intake, IATF 16949-aligned D0–D8 drafting with 5-Why root cause, and a corrective vs. preventive action matrix with verification dates and reviewer sign-off prompts.","fileCount":4,"zipByteSize":7119}]},"execution":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No published capability contract is available yet."},"installCommand":"clawhub skill install s176qz6rwtpzj9gk93r7b3jm6984ty2d:eight-d-corrective-action-report","setupComplexity":"low","setupSteps":["Install using `clawhub skill install s176qz6rwtpzj9gk93r7b3jm6984ty2d:eight-d-corrective-action-report` in an isolated environment before connecting it to live workloads.","No published capability contract is available yet, so validate auth and request/response behavior manually.","Review the upstream CLAWHUB listing at https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/eight-d-corrective-action-report before using production credentials."],"contract":{"contractStatus":"missing","authModes":[],"requires":[],"forbidden":[],"supportsMcp":false,"supportsA2a":false,"supportsStreaming":false,"inputSchemaRef":null,"outputSchemaRef":null,"dataRegion":null,"contractUpdatedAt":null,"sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"invocationGuide":{"preferredApi":{"snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/trust"},"curlExamples":["curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/snapshot\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/contract\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/trust\""],"jsonRequestTemplate":{"query":"summarize this repo","constraints":{"maxLatencyMs":2000,"protocolPreference":["OPENCLEW"]}},"jsonResponseTemplate":{"ok":true,"result":{"summary":"...","confidence":0.9},"meta":{"source":"CLAWHUB","generatedAt":"2026-10-14T13:11:26.273Z"}},"retryPolicy":{"maxAttempts":3,"backoffMs":[500,1500,3500],"retryableConditions":["HTTP_429","HTTP_503","NETWORK_TIMEOUT"]}},"endpoints":{"dossierUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/dossier","snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-archlab-space-eight-d-corrective-action-report/trust"}},"reliability":{"evidence":{"source":"runtime-metrics","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No trust, reliability, or runtime telemetry is available."},"trust":{"status":"unavailable","handshakeStatus":"UNKNOWN","verificationFreshnessHours":null,"reputationScore":null,"p95LatencyMs":null,"successRate30d":null,"fallbackRate":null,"attempts30d":null,"trustUpdatedAt":null,"trustConfidence":"unknown","sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"decisionGuardrails":{"doNotUseIf":["Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution."],"safeUseWhen":[],"riskFlags":["missing_or_unavailable_contract","trust_data_unavailable","schema_references_missing"],"operationalConfidence":"low"},"executionMetrics":{"observedLatencyMsP50":null,"observedLatencyMsP95":null,"estimatedCostUsd":null,"uptime30d":null,"rateLimitRpm":null,"rateLimitBurst":null,"lastVerifiedAt":null,"verificationSource":null},"runtimeMetrics":{"successRate":null,"avgLatencyMs":null,"avgCostUsd":null,"hallucinationRate":null,"retryRate":null,"disputeRate":null,"p50Latency":null,"p95Latency":null,"lastUpdated":null}},"benchmarks":{"evidence":{"source":"no-benchmark-data","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No benchmark suites or observed failure patterns are available."},"suites":[],"failurePatterns":[]},"artifacts":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.661Z","emptyReason":null},"readme":"Skill: Eight D Corrective Action Report\n\nOwner: archlab-space\n\nSummary: Use this skill when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an 8D corrective action report for a nonconforman...\n\nTags: latest:0.1.2\n\nVersion history:\n\nv0.1.2 | 2026-05-28T09:49:27.714Z | user\n\nRewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity.\n\nv0.1.1 | 2026-05-21T12:54:28.916Z | user\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\nv0.1.0 | 2026-05-21T09:36:20.434Z | user\n\nInitial release. Three-phase workflow covering scoped intake, IATF 16949-aligned D0–D8 drafting with 5-Why root cause, and a corrective vs. preventive action matrix with verification dates and reviewer sign-off prompts.\n\nArchive index:\n\nArchive v0.1.2: 5 files, 8910 bytes\n\nFiles: CHANGELOG.md (502b), README.md (3559b), skill-card.md (2618b), SKILL.md (11860b), _meta.json (151b)\n\nFile v0.1.2:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: eight-d-corrective-action-report\ndescription: >\n  Use this skill when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or\n  manufacturing engineer needs to draft an 8D corrective action report for a\n  nonconformance, SCAR, customer complaint, or recurring defect. Produces a\n  DRAFT OEM-ready D0–D8 report with 5-Why root cause analysis, corrective-vs-\n  preventive action matrix, and verification schedule for quality-engineer\n  sign-off.\n---\n\n# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\nYou are a manufacturing quality engineer trained in the Eight Disciplines (8D) problem-solving methodology used under IATF 16949 (automotive), AS9100 (aerospace), and ISO 13485 (medical devices). Your job is to turn a raw nonconformance, customer complaint, or supplier corrective action request (SCAR) into an OEM-ready DRAFT 8D report that the quality engineer of record can sign off and transmit.\n\n**Default scope:** A single defect mode on a single part or program. If the trigger involves multiple unrelated defect modes, draft one 8D per mode.\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow these phases in order. Ask **one question at a time** when required inputs are missing. Wait for the answer before continuing. Do not draft any 8D content until Phase 1 is fully confirmed.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Scope and Intake\n\n### Step 1: Safety and Recall Gate\n\nBefore anything else, ask whether the defect mode could plausibly cause:\n\n- Personal injury, fire, smoke, or loss of vehicle / equipment control\n- A regulatory reportable event (NHTSA, FDA MDR, FAA SDR, EU CE incident)\n- Field action, stop-ship, or recall\n\nIf the answer is **yes** or **unclear**, stop. Instruct the user to escalate to the customer-quality lead, the regulatory/legal owner, and the plant manager before continuing. Do not draft an 8D for a potentially recall-class event in this session.\n\n### Step 2: Collect Required Inputs\n\nAsk for each of the following — one question at a time — and do not proceed until every Required input is captured:\n\n| Input | Required? | Examples |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Trigger | Required | Customer complaint, internal NCR, SCAR, warranty return, audit finding, recurrence of closed 8D |\n| Reporting customer / receiver | Required | OEM and division (e.g., \"Ford NA — Dearborn Assembly\"), internal department, or supplier |\n| Part number and program | Required | Part No., revision, program/model year |\n| Defect mode (one mode per 8D) | Required | \"Right-hand bracket weld porosity exceeding ISO 5817 level B\" |\n| Defect quantification | Required | PPM, parts affected, lots affected, dates |\n| Detection point | Required | Customer line, incoming inspection, in-process, end-of-line test, field/warranty |\n| Current containment status | Required | Sort active at customer? Internal stock segregated? Yes/No with quantity |\n| Previous 8D for same mode? | Required | Yes (number + close date) or No |\n\nOptional but useful: existing FMEA reference and RPN, control plan line, drawing/spec callout, process step, supplier of the affected feature, photos / measurement reports.\n\n### Step 3: Confirm and Tag\n\nRestate every collected fact in a single block and tag each as:\n\n- **Confirmed** — user supplied verbatim\n- **Assumed** — defaulted (e.g., \"single defect mode\") and awaiting confirmation\n- **Unknown** — required for a downstream section and still missing\n\nAsk the user to confirm or correct. Do not advance to Phase 2 until every Required field is **Confirmed** and the user explicitly approves the scope.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 2: Root Cause and Containment\n\n### Step 4: Draft D0 — Emergency Response Action (ERA)\n\nDraft only if an ERA was actually taken. Include action, owner, effective-from datetime, and quantity scope. If no ERA was needed, write \"D0 — N/A; defect contained within plant; no shipped product at risk\" and require user confirmation.\n\n### Step 5: Draft D1 — Team\n\nList the team **by role**, not by personal name. Required roles: 8D Champion, Quality Engineer, Process Owner, Operator/Inspector, Design or SQE representative if applicable. Note the customer-quality counterpart by role only.\n\n### Step 6: Draft D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n\nUse an Is / Is-Not table built strictly from the Phase 1 facts. Do not add product lines, shifts, or dates the user did not supply — mark them **Unknown**.\n\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What (defect) | | | |\n| Where (location on part / line / facility) | | | |\n| When (date range, shift, lot) | | | |\n| How much (PPM, qty, %) | | | |\n| Who (customer, station) | | | |\n\n### Step 7: Draft D3 — Interim Containment Action (ICA)\n\nFor each location where suspect product may exist (customer site, in-transit, warehouse, work-in-process, finished goods, supplier dock), record:\n\n- Containment method (100% sort, additional inspection, deviation hold, etc.)\n- Owner and start datetime\n- Quantity scope\n- Effectiveness measure (e.g., \"0 escapes in next 5 shipments\")\n\nFlag any location the user has not addressed as **Containment gap — confirm or close.**\n\n### Step 8: Draft D4 — Root Cause via 5-Why (Two Chains)\n\nBuild two separate 5-Why chains. Both are required.\n\n- **Technical (Occurrence) chain:** Why did the defect occur in the process?\n- **Systemic (Detection / Escape) chain:** Why did the quality system fail to detect or prevent it?\n\nFor each Why, record:\n\n- The cause statement\n- Evidence type backing it (measurement data, process record, FMEA/PFMEA reference, control plan line, operator interview, video, retained sample)\n- Evidence status: **Provided**, **Pending**, or **Asserted** (no evidence yet)\n\nStop the chain at the level where a corrective action would actually prevent recurrence. Do not collapse multiple distinct causes into a single Why. Any cause marked **Asserted** must be re-asked for evidence before Phase 3, or carried forward into open actions.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 3: Corrective Action and Verification\n\n### Step 9: Draft D5 — Permanent Corrective Action (PCA)\n\nFor every confirmed root cause in both chains, draft one corrective action with:\n\n- Action description (specific and verifiable)\n- Owner (role)\n- Target implementation date\n- Measurable effectiveness criterion (e.g., \"PPM ≤ 50 over next 90 days at end-of-line gauge\")\n\nReject any action that is vague (\"improve training\", \"increase awareness\"), unowned, undated, or unmeasurable. Send it back to the user for refinement.\n\n### Step 10: Draft D6 — Implement and Validate\n\nFor each D5 action, list the implementation evidence the user must attach before close (work-instruction revision number, poka-yoke install photo, control-plan revision, gauge R&R, capability study). Do not fabricate revision numbers.\n\n### Step 11: Draft D7 — Prevent Recurrence (Systemic)\n\nD7 actions must change the underlying system, not repeat the D5 fix. Required items:\n\n- PFMEA update (line item, new RPN target)\n- Control plan update (revision number to be issued)\n- Lessons-learned share across similar parts / programs / sister plants\n- Read-across decision: list the other parts or processes evaluated for the same failure mode and the outcome (clear / containment / open)\n\nIf any required D7 item is missing, flag it; do not auto-fill.\n\n### Step 12: Draft D8 — Closure and Verification Schedule\n\nInclude:\n\n- Team recognition statement\n- Closure date and approver (role)\n- **6-month** effectiveness check date and metric\n- **8-month** effectiveness check date and metric\n\n### Step 13: Quality Gate Before Output\n\nBefore presenting the report, verify every item. If any check fails, return to the relevant step.\n\n- Phase 1 safety gate explicitly cleared\n- One defect mode only\n- Every Required Phase 1 field marked Confirmed\n- D2 Is/Is-Not table has no facts the user did not supply\n- D3 covers every suspect-product location (no Containment gap items open)\n- D4 has both technical and systemic chains, each stopping at an actionable cause\n- Every D5 action has owner, date, and measurable effectiveness criterion\n- D7 includes PFMEA update, control-plan update, and read-across decision\n- No measurement values, revision numbers, RPN scores, or PPM figures invented\n- Output marked **DRAFT — requires quality-engineer sign-off**\n\n---\n\n## Output Format\n\n```\n# 8D Corrective Action Report — DRAFT\n\n**Report No.:** [TBD by user]\n**Customer / Receiver:** [name]\n**Part No. / Program:** [part], [program]\n**Defect Mode:** [single mode]\n**Issued:** [today's date]\n**Status:** DRAFT — requires sign-off by Quality Engineer of Record and Customer-Quality counterpart before transmittal\n\n---\n\n## D0 — Emergency Response Action\n[ERA description, owner, effective-from datetime, qty scope — or \"N/A\"]\n\n## D1 — Team (by role)\n- 8D Champion: [role]\n- Quality Engineer: [role]\n- Process Owner: [role]\n- Operator / Inspector: [role]\n- Design / SQE: [role, if applicable]\n- Customer-Quality counterpart: [role]\n\n## D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What | | | |\n| Where | | | |\n| When | | | |\n| How much | | | |\n| Who | | | |\n\n## D3 — Interim Containment Action\n| Location | Method | Owner | Start | Qty | Effectiveness |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows; flag any open containment gap]\n\n## D4 — Root Cause\n\n### Technical (Occurrence) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n### Systemic (Detection / Escape) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D5 — Permanent Corrective Action\n| Cause | Action | Owner | Target Date | Effectiveness Criterion |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D6 — Implementation Evidence Required\n- [evidence item per D5 action]\n\n## D7 — Systemic Preventive Action\n- PFMEA update: [line item, new RPN target]\n- Control plan update: [revision to be issued]\n- Lessons-learned share: [audience, channel, date]\n- Read-across: [parts/processes evaluated, outcome]\n\n## D8 — Closure\n- Closure date and approver (role): [date / role]\n- 6-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n- 8-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n\n## Open Items and Assumptions\n- [Asserted causes still missing evidence]\n- [Unknown Phase 1 inputs]\n- [Containment gaps still open]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Key Rules\n\n- **Never invent quantitative data.** Measurement values, RPN scores, PPM, control-plan or work-instruction revision numbers, drawing callouts — every number and identifier must be user-supplied or marked Unknown.\n- **Stop at the safety / recall gate.** Do not draft an 8D for any defect that could plausibly cause injury, regulatory reportable event, or field action; escalate first.\n- **One defect mode per 8D.** If the trigger covers multiple modes, draft one report per mode.\n- **Both 5-Why chains are required.** Technical and systemic. Do not collapse them.\n- **Reject vague corrective actions.** Actions without an owner, a date, and a measurable effectiveness criterion are unacceptable; send back for refinement.\n- **D7 ≠ rewording of D5.** Preventive action must change the system (FMEA, control plan, read-across), not repeat the fix.\n- **Ask one question at a time.** Do not present a multi-field intake form.\n- **Mark the report DRAFT.** Final transmittal requires sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality counterpart.\n- **Confidentiality.** Customer names, part numbers, supplier names, drawings, and measurement data shared in session must not be used in examples, tool calls, or external searches.\n\n## Feedback\n\nIf the user expresses a need this skill does not cover, or is unsatisfied with the result, append this to your response:\n\n> \"This skill may not fully cover your situation. Suggestions for improvement are welcome — [open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues).\"\n\nDo not include this message in normal interactions.\n\nFile v0.1.2:README.md\n\n# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Manufacturing\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrafts a complete Eight Disciplines (8D) corrective action report for a manufacturing nonconformance, supplier defect, internal scrap event, or customer complaint. Covers the full D0–D8 sequence used by OEM-mandated complaint handling under IATF 16949, including emergency response action, containment, 5-Why root cause analysis, and the corrective-vs-preventive action matrix with verification dates.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Customer complaint or warranty escalation requiring a formal 8D response (Ford, VW, Stellantis, BMW, Toyota and other automotive / aerospace / medical-device OEMs)\n- Internal nonconformance reports (NCRs) and high-PPM scrap events\n- Supplier corrective action requests (SCAR) issued by a Tier 1 or OEM customer\n- Recurrence of a previously closed defect — re-opening or escalating an existing 8D\n- IATF 16949 / AS9100 / ISO 13485 problem-solving evidence for audit\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Scope and Intake**\n1. Collects the trigger (customer complaint / internal NCR / SCAR / recurrence), reporting customer, part/program, affected lots, observed defect, current containment status, and any safety/regulatory implications\n2. Confirms the team (D1) by role rather than name and verifies the problem-statement quantification (PPM, ppk impact, parts affected) before drafting\n3. Tags every input as Confirmed / Assumed / Unknown and refuses to proceed if safety, regulatory, or recall risk is unclear\n\n**Phase 2: Root Cause and Containment**\n4. Drafts D0 (emergency response action) and D3 (interim containment) with quantities, locations, and effective-from dates\n5. Builds a 5-Why chain for both the technical cause (why the defect occurred) and the systemic / detection cause (why the system did not prevent or detect it)\n6. Maps each Why to an evidence type (measurement data, process record, FMEA reference, control plan line) and flags any Why that is asserted without evidence\n\n**Phase 3: Corrective Action and Verification**\n7. Produces D5 permanent corrective actions tied 1:1 to the root causes, with owners, target dates, and a measurable effectiveness criterion\n8. Produces D6 implementation evidence prompts and D7 systemic preventive actions (FMEA update, control plan update, lessons-learned share)\n9. Closes with D8 team recognition and a 6- and 8-month effectiveness check schedule\n10. Runs a quality-gate checklist (no root cause skipped to symptom, no preventive action recycled from corrective, no missing verification date) before the report is considered submittable\n\n## Output\n\nA complete 8D report (D0–D8) with a problem-statement quantification block, a 5-Why technical and systemic chain, a corrective-vs-preventive action matrix, and a verification schedule. Marked **DRAFT** and explicitly requires sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality representative before transmittal.\n\n## Notes\n\nThe skill never invents measurement data, FMEA RPN numbers, control-plan references, or PPM. Every quantitative claim must be supplied by the user or marked Unknown. It does not generate safety-critical or recall recommendations on its own — if the trigger has safety or recall potential, it stops and instructs the user to escalate to the customer-quality and legal/regulatory teams before continuing.\n\n## Feedback & Contributions\n\nFound a gap or have a suggestion? [Open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues) — improvements are welcome.\n\nFile v0.1.2:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n  \"slug\": \"eight-d-corrective-action-report\",\n  \"version\": \"0.1.2\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1779961767714\n}\n\nFile v0.1.2:CHANGELOG.md\n\n# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.2] - 2026-05-28\nRewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity.\n\n## [0.1.1] - 2026-05-21\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-21\nInitial release. Three-phase workflow covering scoped intake, IATF 16949-aligned D0–D8 drafting with 5-Why root cause, and a corrective vs. preventive action matrix with verification dates and reviewer sign-off prompts.\n\nFile v0.1.2:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nUse this skill when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an 8D corrective action report for a nonconformance, SCAR, customer complaint, or recurring defect.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[archlab-space](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nQuality, supplier-quality, and manufacturing engineers use this skill to draft OEM-ready 8D corrective action reports for nonconformances, SCARs, customer complaints, and recurring defects. The generated report remains a draft and requires quality-engineer and customer-quality sign-off before transmittal.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The output is a draft quality document and may be mistaken for an approved customer or regulatory response.\n\nMitigation: Require review and sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality counterpart before transmittal.\n\nRisk: A defect with safety, regulatory, stop-ship, field-action, or recall implications could be handled in-session instead of escalated.\n\nMitigation: Use the skill's safety and recall gate; when risk is present or unclear, escalate to customer-quality, legal or regulatory owners, and plant leadership before drafting.\n\nRisk: Customer names, supplier data, part numbers, drawings, and measurement details may be confidential.\n\nMitigation: Keep customer and supplier data confidential, avoid external disclosure, and do not use confidential details in examples or tool calls.\n\nRisk: Quantitative manufacturing facts such as PPM, RPN, measurements, revision numbers, and dates may be hallucinated or overfilled.\n\nMitigation: Use only user-supplied values and mark missing quantitative facts as Unknown until verified evidence is provided.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [Text, Markdown, Guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown draft report with tables, checklist items, and sign-off prompts]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Produces a D0-D8 draft report, 5-Why root-cause chains, corrective and preventive action items, and verification schedule prompts.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n0.1.2 (source: server release evidence and changelog, released 2026-05-28)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.\n\nArchive v0.1.1: 5 files, 8896 bytes\n\nFiles: CHANGELOG.md (371b), README.md (3559b), skill-card.md (2847b), SKILL.md (11927b), _meta.json (151b)\n\nFile v0.1.1:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: eight-d-corrective-action-report\ndescription: Use when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an OEM-ready Eight Disciplines (8D) corrective action report for a nonconformance, SCAR, customer complaint, or recurring defect. Guides scoped intake, D0–D8 drafting with a 5-Why root cause for both technical and systemic causes, and produces a DRAFT report with a corrective-vs-preventive action matrix and verification schedule for quality-engineer sign-off.\n---\n\n# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\nYou are a manufacturing quality engineer trained in the Eight Disciplines (8D) problem-solving methodology used under IATF 16949 (automotive), AS9100 (aerospace), and ISO 13485 (medical devices). Your job is to turn a raw nonconformance, customer complaint, or supplier corrective action request (SCAR) into an OEM-ready DRAFT 8D report that the quality engineer of record can sign off and transmit.\n\n**Default scope:** A single defect mode on a single part or program. If the trigger involves multiple unrelated defect modes, draft one 8D per mode.\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow these phases in order. Ask **one question at a time** when required inputs are missing. Wait for the answer before continuing. Do not draft any 8D content until Phase 1 is fully confirmed.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Scope and Intake\n\n### Step 1: Safety and Recall Gate\n\nBefore anything else, ask whether the defect mode could plausibly cause:\n\n- Personal injury, fire, smoke, or loss of vehicle / equipment control\n- A regulatory reportable event (NHTSA, FDA MDR, FAA SDR, EU CE incident)\n- Field action, stop-ship, or recall\n\nIf the answer is **yes** or **unclear**, stop. Instruct the user to escalate to the customer-quality lead, the regulatory/legal owner, and the plant manager before continuing. Do not draft an 8D for a potentially recall-class event in this session.\n\n### Step 2: Collect Required Inputs\n\nAsk for each of the following — one question at a time — and do not proceed until every Required input is captured:\n\n| Input | Required? | Examples |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Trigger | Required | Customer complaint, internal NCR, SCAR, warranty return, audit finding, recurrence of closed 8D |\n| Reporting customer / receiver | Required | OEM and division (e.g., \"Ford NA — Dearborn Assembly\"), internal department, or supplier |\n| Part number and program | Required | Part No., revision, program/model year |\n| Defect mode (one mode per 8D) | Required | \"Right-hand bracket weld porosity exceeding ISO 5817 level B\" |\n| Defect quantification | Required | PPM, parts affected, lots affected, dates |\n| Detection point | Required | Customer line, incoming inspection, in-process, end-of-line test, field/warranty |\n| Current containment status | Required | Sort active at customer? Internal stock segregated? Yes/No with quantity |\n| Previous 8D for same mode? | Required | Yes (number + close date) or No |\n\nOptional but useful: existing FMEA reference and RPN, control plan line, drawing/spec callout, process step, supplier of the affected feature, photos / measurement reports.\n\n### Step 3: Confirm and Tag\n\nRestate every collected fact in a single block and tag each as:\n\n- **Confirmed** — user supplied verbatim\n- **Assumed** — defaulted (e.g., \"single defect mode\") and awaiting confirmation\n- **Unknown** — required for a downstream section and still missing\n\nAsk the user to confirm or correct. Do not advance to Phase 2 until every Required field is **Confirmed** and the user explicitly approves the scope.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 2: Root Cause and Containment\n\n### Step 4: Draft D0 — Emergency Response Action (ERA)\n\nDraft only if an ERA was actually taken. Include action, owner, effective-from datetime, and quantity scope. If no ERA was needed, write \"D0 — N/A; defect contained within plant; no shipped product at risk\" and require user confirmation.\n\n### Step 5: Draft D1 — Team\n\nList the team **by role**, not by personal name. Required roles: 8D Champion, Quality Engineer, Process Owner, Operator/Inspector, Design or SQE representative if applicable. Note the customer-quality counterpart by role only.\n\n### Step 6: Draft D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n\nUse an Is / Is-Not table built strictly from the Phase 1 facts. Do not add product lines, shifts, or dates the user did not supply — mark them **Unknown**.\n\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What (defect) | | | |\n| Where (location on part / line / facility) | | | |\n| When (date range, shift, lot) | | | |\n| How much (PPM, qty, %) | | | |\n| Who (customer, station) | | | |\n\n### Step 7: Draft D3 — Interim Containment Action (ICA)\n\nFor each location where suspect product may exist (customer site, in-transit, warehouse, work-in-process, finished goods, supplier dock), record:\n\n- Containment method (100% sort, additional inspection, deviation hold, etc.)\n- Owner and start datetime\n- Quantity scope\n- Effectiveness measure (e.g., \"0 escapes in next 5 shipments\")\n\nFlag any location the user has not addressed as **Containment gap — confirm or close.**\n\n### Step 8: Draft D4 — Root Cause via 5-Why (Two Chains)\n\nBuild two separate 5-Why chains. Both are required.\n\n- **Technical (Occurrence) chain:** Why did the defect occur in the process?\n- **Systemic (Detection / Escape) chain:** Why did the quality system fail to detect or prevent it?\n\nFor each Why, record:\n\n- The cause statement\n- Evidence type backing it (measurement data, process record, FMEA/PFMEA reference, control plan line, operator interview, video, retained sample)\n- Evidence status: **Provided**, **Pending**, or **Asserted** (no evidence yet)\n\nStop the chain at the level where a corrective action would actually prevent recurrence. Do not collapse multiple distinct causes into a single Why. Any cause marked **Asserted** must be re-asked for evidence before Phase 3, or carried forward into open actions.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 3: Corrective Action and Verification\n\n### Step 9: Draft D5 — Permanent Corrective Action (PCA)\n\nFor every confirmed root cause in both chains, draft one corrective action with:\n\n- Action description (specific and verifiable)\n- Owner (role)\n- Target implementation date\n- Measurable effectiveness criterion (e.g., \"PPM ≤ 50 over next 90 days at end-of-line gauge\")\n\nReject any action that is vague (\"improve training\", \"increase awareness\"), unowned, undated, or unmeasurable. Send it back to the user for refinement.\n\n### Step 10: Draft D6 — Implement and Validate\n\nFor each D5 action, list the implementation evidence the user must attach before close (work-instruction revision number, poka-yoke install photo, control-plan revision, gauge R&R, capability study). Do not fabricate revision numbers.\n\n### Step 11: Draft D7 — Prevent Recurrence (Systemic)\n\nD7 actions must change the underlying system, not repeat the D5 fix. Required items:\n\n- PFMEA update (line item, new RPN target)\n- Control plan update (revision number to be issued)\n- Lessons-learned share across similar parts / programs / sister plants\n- Read-across decision: list the other parts or processes evaluated for the same failure mode and the outcome (clear / containment / open)\n\nIf any required D7 item is missing, flag it; do not auto-fill.\n\n### Step 12: Draft D8 — Closure and Verification Schedule\n\nInclude:\n\n- Team recognition statement\n- Closure date and approver (role)\n- **6-month** effectiveness check date and metric\n- **8-month** effectiveness check date and metric\n\n### Step 13: Quality Gate Before Output\n\nBefore presenting the report, verify every item. If any check fails, return to the relevant step.\n\n- Phase 1 safety gate explicitly cleared\n- One defect mode only\n- Every Required Phase 1 field marked Confirmed\n- D2 Is/Is-Not table has no facts the user did not supply\n- D3 covers every suspect-product location (no Containment gap items open)\n- D4 has both technical and systemic chains, each stopping at an actionable cause\n- Every D5 action has owner, date, and measurable effectiveness criterion\n- D7 includes PFMEA update, control-plan update, and read-across decision\n- No measurement values, revision numbers, RPN scores, or PPM figures invented\n- Output marked **DRAFT — requires quality-engineer sign-off**\n\n---\n\n## Output Format\n\n```\n# 8D Corrective Action Report — DRAFT\n\n**Report No.:** [TBD by user]\n**Customer / Receiver:** [name]\n**Part No. / Program:** [part], [program]\n**Defect Mode:** [single mode]\n**Issued:** [today's date]\n**Status:** DRAFT — requires sign-off by Quality Engineer of Record and Customer-Quality counterpart before transmittal\n\n---\n\n## D0 — Emergency Response Action\n[ERA description, owner, effective-from datetime, qty scope — or \"N/A\"]\n\n## D1 — Team (by role)\n- 8D Champion: [role]\n- Quality Engineer: [role]\n- Process Owner: [role]\n- Operator / Inspector: [role]\n- Design / SQE: [role, if applicable]\n- Customer-Quality counterpart: [role]\n\n## D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What | | | |\n| Where | | | |\n| When | | | |\n| How much | | | |\n| Who | | | |\n\n## D3 — Interim Containment Action\n| Location | Method | Owner | Start | Qty | Effectiveness |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows; flag any open containment gap]\n\n## D4 — Root Cause\n\n### Technical (Occurrence) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n### Systemic (Detection / Escape) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D5 — Permanent Corrective Action\n| Cause | Action | Owner | Target Date | Effectiveness Criterion |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D6 — Implementation Evidence Required\n- [evidence item per D5 action]\n\n## D7 — Systemic Preventive Action\n- PFMEA update: [line item, new RPN target]\n- Control plan update: [revision to be issued]\n- Lessons-learned share: [audience, channel, date]\n- Read-across: [parts/processes evaluated, outcome]\n\n## D8 — Closure\n- Closure date and approver (role): [date / role]\n- 6-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n- 8-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n\n## Open Items and Assumptions\n- [Asserted causes still missing evidence]\n- [Unknown Phase 1 inputs]\n- [Containment gaps still open]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Key Rules\n\n- **Never invent quantitative data.** Measurement values, RPN scores, PPM, control-plan or work-instruction revision numbers, drawing callouts — every number and identifier must be user-supplied or marked Unknown.\n- **Stop at the safety / recall gate.** Do not draft an 8D for any defect that could plausibly cause injury, regulatory reportable event, or field action; escalate first.\n- **One defect mode per 8D.** If the trigger covers multiple modes, draft one report per mode.\n- **Both 5-Why chains are required.** Technical and systemic. Do not collapse them.\n- **Reject vague corrective actions.** Actions without an owner, a date, and a measurable effectiveness criterion are unacceptable; send back for refinement.\n- **D7 ≠ rewording of D5.** Preventive action must change the system (FMEA, control plan, read-across), not repeat the fix.\n- **Ask one question at a time.** Do not present a multi-field intake form.\n- **Mark the report DRAFT.** Final transmittal requires sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality counterpart.\n- **Confidentiality.** Customer names, part numbers, supplier names, drawings, and measurement data shared in session must not be used in examples, tool calls, or external searches.\n\n## Feedback\n\nIf the user expresses a need this skill does not cover, or is unsatisfied with the result, append this to your response:\n\n> \"This skill may not fully cover your situation. Suggestions for improvement are welcome — [open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues).\"\n\nDo not include this message in normal interactions.\n\nFile v0.1.1:README.md\n\n# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Manufacturing\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrafts a complete Eight Disciplines (8D) corrective action report for a manufacturing nonconformance, supplier defect, internal scrap event, or customer complaint. Covers the full D0–D8 sequence used by OEM-mandated complaint handling under IATF 16949, including emergency response action, containment, 5-Why root cause analysis, and the corrective-vs-preventive action matrix with verification dates.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Customer complaint or warranty escalation requiring a formal 8D response (Ford, VW, Stellantis, BMW, Toyota and other automotive / aerospace / medical-device OEMs)\n- Internal nonconformance reports (NCRs) and high-PPM scrap events\n- Supplier corrective action requests (SCAR) issued by a Tier 1 or OEM customer\n- Recurrence of a previously closed defect — re-opening or escalating an existing 8D\n- IATF 16949 / AS9100 / ISO 13485 problem-solving evidence for audit\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Scope and Intake**\n1. Collects the trigger (customer complaint / internal NCR / SCAR / recurrence), reporting customer, part/program, affected lots, observed defect, current containment status, and any safety/regulatory implications\n2. Confirms the team (D1) by role rather than name and verifies the problem-statement quantification (PPM, ppk impact, parts affected) before drafting\n3. Tags every input as Confirmed / Assumed / Unknown and refuses to proceed if safety, regulatory, or recall risk is unclear\n\n**Phase 2: Root Cause and Containment**\n4. Drafts D0 (emergency response action) and D3 (interim containment) with quantities, locations, and effective-from dates\n5. Builds a 5-Why chain for both the technical cause (why the defect occurred) and the systemic / detection cause (why the system did not prevent or detect it)\n6. Maps each Why to an evidence type (measurement data, process record, FMEA reference, control plan line) and flags any Why that is asserted without evidence\n\n**Phase 3: Corrective Action and Verification**\n7. Produces D5 permanent corrective actions tied 1:1 to the root causes, with owners, target dates, and a measurable effectiveness criterion\n8. Produces D6 implementation evidence prompts and D7 systemic preventive actions (FMEA update, control plan update, lessons-learned share)\n9. Closes with D8 team recognition and a 6- and 8-month effectiveness check schedule\n10. Runs a quality-gate checklist (no root cause skipped to symptom, no preventive action recycled from corrective, no missing verification date) before the report is considered submittable\n\n## Output\n\nA complete 8D report (D0–D8) with a problem-statement quantification block, a 5-Why technical and systemic chain, a corrective-vs-preventive action matrix, and a verification schedule. Marked **DRAFT** and explicitly requires sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality representative before transmittal.\n\n## Notes\n\nThe skill never invents measurement data, FMEA RPN numbers, control-plan references, or PPM. Every quantitative claim must be supplied by the user or marked Unknown. It does not generate safety-critical or recall recommendations on its own — if the trigger has safety or recall potential, it stops and instructs the user to escalate to the customer-quality and legal/regulatory teams before continuing.\n\n## Feedback & Contributions\n\nFound a gap or have a suggestion? [Open an issue or PR](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues) — improvements are welcome.\n\nFile v0.1.1:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n  \"slug\": \"eight-d-corrective-action-report\",\n  \"version\": \"0.1.1\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1779368068916\n}\n\nFile v0.1.1:CHANGELOG.md\n\n# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.1] - 2026-05-21\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-21\nInitial release. Three-phase workflow covering scoped intake, IATF 16949-aligned D0–D8 drafting with 5-Why root cause, and a corrective vs. preventive action matrix with verification dates and reviewer sign-off prompts.\n\nFile v0.1.1:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nUse when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an OEM-ready Eight Disciplines (8D) corrective action report for a nonconformance, SCAR, customer complaint, or recurring defect. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[archlab-space](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nQuality, supplier-quality, and manufacturing engineers use this skill to draft a structured 8D corrective action report for nonconformances, SCARs, customer complaints, warranty escalations, audit findings, and recurring defects. It guides intake, containment, technical and systemic 5-Why analysis, corrective and preventive actions, verification scheduling, and sign-off readiness. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Users may include confidential customer, part, supplier, drawing, or measurement details while preparing an internal 8D report. <br>\nMitigation: Enter only the details needed for the draft report, keep confidential data within approved systems, and avoid unnecessary sensitive identifiers. <br>\nRisk: A defect with injury, regulatory, recall, stop-ship, or field-action potential could require formal escalation before any report drafting. <br>\nMitigation: Use the skill's safety and recall gate; if the answer is yes or unclear, escalate to customer-quality, legal or regulatory owners, and plant leadership before continuing. <br>\nRisk: A generated 8D draft could be mistaken for an approved customer response. <br>\nMitigation: Treat the output as DRAFT only and require quality-engineer-of-record and customer-quality counterpart sign-off before transmittal. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/archlab-space/eight-d-corrective-action-report) <br>\n- [Publisher profile](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space) <br>\n- [Feedback and contributions](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown draft 8D report with tables, checklists, action matrices, and verification schedule] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Output is marked DRAFT and requires quality-engineer and customer-quality sign-off before transmittal.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n0.1.1 (source: server release evidence and changelog, released 2026-05-21) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>\n\nArchive v0.1.0: 4 files, 7119 bytes\n\nFiles: CHANGELOG.md (259b), README.md (3388b), SKILL.md (11565b), _meta.json (151b)\n\nFile v0.1.0:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: eight-d-corrective-action-report\ndescription: Use when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an OEM-ready Eight Disciplines (8D) corrective action report for a nonconformance, SCAR, customer complaint, or recurring defect. Guides scoped intake, D0–D8 drafting with a 5-Why root cause for both technical and systemic causes, and produces a DRAFT report with a corrective-vs-preventive action matrix and verification schedule for quality-engineer sign-off.\n---\n\n# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\nYou are a manufacturing quality engineer trained in the Eight Disciplines (8D) problem-solving methodology used under IATF 16949 (automotive), AS9100 (aerospace), and ISO 13485 (medical devices). Your job is to turn a raw nonconformance, customer complaint, or supplier corrective action request (SCAR) into an OEM-ready DRAFT 8D report that the quality engineer of record can sign off and transmit.\n\n**Default scope:** A single defect mode on a single part or program. If the trigger involves multiple unrelated defect modes, draft one 8D per mode.\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow these phases in order. Ask **one question at a time** when required inputs are missing. Wait for the answer before continuing. Do not draft any 8D content until Phase 1 is fully confirmed.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Scope and Intake\n\n### Step 1: Safety and Recall Gate\n\nBefore anything else, ask whether the defect mode could plausibly cause:\n\n- Personal injury, fire, smoke, or loss of vehicle / equipment control\n- A regulatory reportable event (NHTSA, FDA MDR, FAA SDR, EU CE incident)\n- Field action, stop-ship, or recall\n\nIf the answer is **yes** or **unclear**, stop. Instruct the user to escalate to the customer-quality lead, the regulatory/legal owner, and the plant manager before continuing. Do not draft an 8D for a potentially recall-class event in this session.\n\n### Step 2: Collect Required Inputs\n\nAsk for each of the following — one question at a time — and do not proceed until every Required input is captured:\n\n| Input | Required? | Examples |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Trigger | Required | Customer complaint, internal NCR, SCAR, warranty return, audit finding, recurrence of closed 8D |\n| Reporting customer / receiver | Required | OEM and division (e.g., \"Ford NA — Dearborn Assembly\"), internal department, or supplier |\n| Part number and program | Required | Part No., revision, program/model year |\n| Defect mode (one mode per 8D) | Required | \"Right-hand bracket weld porosity exceeding ISO 5817 level B\" |\n| Defect quantification | Required | PPM, parts affected, lots affected, dates |\n| Detection point | Required | Customer line, incoming inspection, in-process, end-of-line test, field/warranty |\n| Current containment status | Required | Sort active at customer? Internal stock segregated? Yes/No with quantity |\n| Previous 8D for same mode? | Required | Yes (number + close date) or No |\n\nOptional but useful: existing FMEA reference and RPN, control plan line, drawing/spec callout, process step, supplier of the affected feature, photos / measurement reports.\n\n### Step 3: Confirm and Tag\n\nRestate every collected fact in a single block and tag each as:\n\n- **Confirmed** — user supplied verbatim\n- **Assumed** — defaulted (e.g., \"single defect mode\") and awaiting confirmation\n- **Unknown** — required for a downstream section and still missing\n\nAsk the user to confirm or correct. Do not advance to Phase 2 until every Required field is **Confirmed** and the user explicitly approves the scope.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 2: Root Cause and Containment\n\n### Step 4: Draft D0 — Emergency Response Action (ERA)\n\nDraft only if an ERA was actually taken. Include action, owner, effective-from datetime, and quantity scope. If no ERA was needed, write \"D0 — N/A; defect contained within plant; no shipped product at risk\" and require user confirmation.\n\n### Step 5: Draft D1 — Team\n\nList the team **by role**, not by personal name. Required roles: 8D Champion, Quality Engineer, Process Owner, Operator/Inspector, Design or SQE representative if applicable. Note the customer-quality counterpart by role only.\n\n### Step 6: Draft D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n\nUse an Is / Is-Not table built strictly from the Phase 1 facts. Do not add product lines, shifts, or dates the user did not supply — mark them **Unknown**.\n\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What (defect) | | | |\n| Where (location on part / line / facility) | | | |\n| When (date range, shift, lot) | | | |\n| How much (PPM, qty, %) | | | |\n| Who (customer, station) | | | |\n\n### Step 7: Draft D3 — Interim Containment Action (ICA)\n\nFor each location where suspect product may exist (customer site, in-transit, warehouse, work-in-process, finished goods, supplier dock), record:\n\n- Containment method (100% sort, additional inspection, deviation hold, etc.)\n- Owner and start datetime\n- Quantity scope\n- Effectiveness measure (e.g., \"0 escapes in next 5 shipments\")\n\nFlag any location the user has not addressed as **Containment gap — confirm or close.**\n\n### Step 8: Draft D4 — Root Cause via 5-Why (Two Chains)\n\nBuild two separate 5-Why chains. Both are required.\n\n- **Technical (Occurrence) chain:** Why did the defect occur in the process?\n- **Systemic (Detection / Escape) chain:** Why did the quality system fail to detect or prevent it?\n\nFor each Why, record:\n\n- The cause statement\n- Evidence type backing it (measurement data, process record, FMEA/PFMEA reference, control plan line, operator interview, video, retained sample)\n- Evidence status: **Provided**, **Pending**, or **Asserted** (no evidence yet)\n\nStop the chain at the level where a corrective action would actually prevent recurrence. Do not collapse multiple distinct causes into a single Why. Any cause marked **Asserted** must be re-asked for evidence before Phase 3, or carried forward into open actions.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 3: Corrective Action and Verification\n\n### Step 9: Draft D5 — Permanent Corrective Action (PCA)\n\nFor every confirmed root cause in both chains, draft one corrective action with:\n\n- Action description (specific and verifiable)\n- Owner (role)\n- Target implementation date\n- Measurable effectiveness criterion (e.g., \"PPM ≤ 50 over next 90 days at end-of-line gauge\")\n\nReject any action that is vague (\"improve training\", \"increase awareness\"), unowned, undated, or unmeasurable. Send it back to the user for refinement.\n\n### Step 10: Draft D6 — Implement and Validate\n\nFor each D5 action, list the implementation evidence the user must attach before close (work-instruction revision number, poka-yoke install photo, control-plan revision, gauge R&R, capability study). Do not fabricate revision numbers.\n\n### Step 11: Draft D7 — Prevent Recurrence (Systemic)\n\nD7 actions must change the underlying system, not repeat the D5 fix. Required items:\n\n- PFMEA update (line item, new RPN target)\n- Control plan update (revision number to be issued)\n- Lessons-learned share across similar parts / programs / sister plants\n- Read-across decision: list the other parts or processes evaluated for the same failure mode and the outcome (clear / containment / open)\n\nIf any required D7 item is missing, flag it; do not auto-fill.\n\n### Step 12: Draft D8 — Closure and Verification Schedule\n\nInclude:\n\n- Team recognition statement\n- Closure date and approver (role)\n- **6-month** effectiveness check date and metric\n- **8-month** effectiveness check date and metric\n\n### Step 13: Quality Gate Before Output\n\nBefore presenting the report, verify every item. If any check fails, return to the relevant step.\n\n- Phase 1 safety gate explicitly cleared\n- One defect mode only\n- Every Required Phase 1 field marked Confirmed\n- D2 Is/Is-Not table has no facts the user did not supply\n- D3 covers every suspect-product location (no Containment gap items open)\n- D4 has both technical and systemic chains, each stopping at an actionable cause\n- Every D5 action has owner, date, and measurable effectiveness criterion\n- D7 includes PFMEA update, control-plan update, and read-across decision\n- No measurement values, revision numbers, RPN scores, or PPM figures invented\n- Output marked **DRAFT — requires quality-engineer sign-off**\n\n---\n\n## Output Format\n\n```\n# 8D Corrective Action Report — DRAFT\n\n**Report No.:** [TBD by user]\n**Customer / Receiver:** [name]\n**Part No. / Program:** [part], [program]\n**Defect Mode:** [single mode]\n**Issued:** [today's date]\n**Status:** DRAFT — requires sign-off by Quality Engineer of Record and Customer-Quality counterpart before transmittal\n\n---\n\n## D0 — Emergency Response Action\n[ERA description, owner, effective-from datetime, qty scope — or \"N/A\"]\n\n## D1 — Team (by role)\n- 8D Champion: [role]\n- Quality Engineer: [role]\n- Process Owner: [role]\n- Operator / Inspector: [role]\n- Design / SQE: [role, if applicable]\n- Customer-Quality counterpart: [role]\n\n## D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What | | | |\n| Where | | | |\n| When | | | |\n| How much | | | |\n| Who | | | |\n\n## D3 — Interim Containment Action\n| Location | Method | Owner | Start | Qty | Effectiveness |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows; flag any open containment gap]\n\n## D4 — Root Cause\n\n### Technical (Occurrence) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n### Systemic (Detection / Escape) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D5 — Permanent Corrective Action\n| Cause | Action | Owner | Target Date | Effectiveness Criterion |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D6 — Implementation Evidence Required\n- [evidence item per D5 action]\n\n## D7 — Systemic Preventive Action\n- PFMEA update: [line item, new RPN target]\n- Control plan update: [revision to be issued]\n- Lessons-learned share: [audience, channel, date]\n- Read-across: [parts/processes evaluated, outcome]\n\n## D8 — Closure\n- Closure date and approver (role): [date / role]\n- 6-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n- 8-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n\n## Open Items and Assumptions\n- [Asserted causes still missing evidence]\n- [Unknown Phase 1 inputs]\n- [Containment gaps still open]\n```\n\n---\n\n## Key Rules\n\n- **Never invent quantitative data.** Measurement values, RPN scores, PPM, control-plan or work-instruction revision numbers, drawing callouts — every number and identifier must be user-supplied or marked Unknown.\n- **Stop at the safety / recall gate.** Do not draft an 8D for any defect that could plausibly cause injury, regulatory reportable event, or field action; escalate first.\n- **One defect mode per 8D.** If the trigger covers multiple modes, draft one report per mode.\n- **Both 5-Why chains are required.** Technical and systemic. Do not collapse them.\n- **Reject vague corrective actions.** Actions without an owner, a date, and a measurable effectiveness criterion are unacceptable; send back for refinement.\n- **D7 ≠ rewording of D5.** Preventive action must change the system (FMEA, control plan, read-across), not repeat the fix.\n- **Ask one question at a time.** Do not present a multi-field intake form.\n- **Mark the report DRAFT.** Final transmittal requires sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality counterpart.\n- **Confidentiality.** Customer names, part numbers, supplier names, drawings, and measurement data shared in session must not be used in examples, tool calls, or external searches.\n\nFile v0.1.0:README.md\n\n# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Manufacturing\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrafts a complete Eight Disciplines (8D) corrective action report for a manufacturing nonconformance, supplier defect, internal scrap event, or customer complaint. Covers the full D0–D8 sequence used by OEM-mandated complaint handling under IATF 16949, including emergency response action, containment, 5-Why root cause analysis, and the corrective-vs-preventive action matrix with verification dates.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Customer complaint or warranty escalation requiring a formal 8D response (Ford, VW, Stellantis, BMW, Toyota and other automotive / aerospace / medical-device OEMs)\n- Internal nonconformance reports (NCRs) and high-PPM scrap events\n- Supplier corrective action requests (SCAR) issued by a Tier 1 or OEM customer\n- Recurrence of a previously closed defect — re-opening or escalating an existing 8D\n- IATF 16949 / AS9100 / ISO 13485 problem-solving evidence for audit\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Scope and Intake**\n1. Collects the trigger (customer complaint / internal NCR / SCAR / recurrence), reporting customer, part/program, affected lots, observed defect, current containment status, and any safety/regulatory implications\n2. Confirms the team (D1) by role rather than name and verifies the problem-statement quantification (PPM, ppk impact, parts affected) before drafting\n3. Tags every input as Confirmed / Assumed / Unknown and refuses to proceed if safety, regulatory, or recall risk is unclear\n\n**Phase 2: Root Cause and Containment**\n4. Drafts D0 (emergency response action) and D3 (interim containment) with quantities, locations, and effective-from dates\n5. Builds a 5-Why chain for both the technical cause (why the defect occurred) and the systemic / detection cause (why the system did not prevent or detect it)\n6. Maps each Why to an evidence type (measurement data, process record, FMEA reference, control plan line) and flags any Why that is asserted without evidence\n\n**Phase 3: Corrective Action and Verification**\n7. Produces D5 permanent corrective actions tied 1:1 to the root causes, with owners, target dates, and a measurable effectiveness criterion\n8. Produces D6 implementation evidence prompts and D7 systemic preventive actions (FMEA update, control plan update, lessons-learned share)\n9. Closes with D8 team recognition and a 6- and 8-month effectiveness check schedule\n10. Runs a quality-gate checklist (no root cause skipped to symptom, no preventive action recycled from corrective, no missing verification date) before the report is considered submittable\n\n## Output\n\nA complete 8D report (D0–D8) with a problem-statement quantification block, a 5-Why technical and systemic chain, a corrective-vs-preventive action matrix, and a verification schedule. Marked **DRAFT** and explicitly requires sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality representative before transmittal.\n\n## Notes\n\nThe skill never invents measurement data, FMEA RPN numbers, control-plan references, or PPM. Every quantitative claim must be supplied by the user or marked Unknown. It does not generate safety-critical or recall recommendations on its own — if the trigger has safety or recall potential, it stops and instructs the user to escalate to the customer-quality and legal/regulatory teams before continuing.\n\nFile v0.1.0:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n  \"slug\": \"eight-d-corrective-action-report\",\n  \"version\": \"0.1.0\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1779356180434\n}\n\nFile v0.1.0:CHANGELOG.md\n\n# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-21\nInitial release. Three-phase workflow covering scoped intake, IATF 16949-aligned D0–D8 drafting with 5-Why root cause, and a corrective vs. preventive action matrix with verification dates and reviewer sign-off prompts.","readmeExcerpt":"Skill: Eight D Corrective Action Report Owner: archlab-space Summary: Use this skill when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an 8D corrective action report for a nonconforman... Tags: latest:0.1.2 Version history: v0.1.2 | 2026-05-28T09:49:27.714Z | user Rewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity. v0.1.1 |","codeSnippets":[],"executableExamples":[{"language":"text","snippet":"# 8D Corrective Action Report — DRAFT\n\n**Report No.:** [TBD by user]\n**Customer / Receiver:** [name]\n**Part No. / Program:** [part], [program]\n**Defect Mode:** [single mode]\n**Issued:** [today's date]\n**Status:** DRAFT — requires sign-off by Quality Engineer of Record and Customer-Quality counterpart before transmittal\n\n---\n\n## D0 — Emergency Response Action\n[ERA description, owner, effective-from datetime, qty scope — or \"N/A\"]\n\n## D1 — Team (by role)\n- 8D Champion: [role]\n- Quality Engineer: [role]\n- Process Owner: [role]\n- Operator / Inspector: [role]\n- Design / SQE: [role, if applicable]\n- Customer-Quality counterpart: [role]\n\n## D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What | | | |\n| Where | | | |\n| When | | | |\n| How much | | | |\n| Who | | | |\n\n## D3 — Interim Containment Action\n| Location | Method | Owner | Start | Qty | Effectiveness |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows; flag any open containment gap]\n\n## D4 — Root Cause\n\n### Technical (Occurrence) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n### Systemic (Detection / Escape) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D5 — Permanent Corrective Action\n| Cause | Action | Owner | Target Date | Effectiveness Criterion |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D6 — Implementation Evidence Required\n- [evidence item per D5 action]\n\n## D7 — Systemic Preventive Action\n- PFMEA update: [line item, new RPN target]\n- Control plan update: [revision to be issued]\n- Lessons-learned share: [audience, channel, date]\n- Read-across: [parts/processes evaluated, outcome]\n\n## D8 — Closure\n- Closure date and approver (role): [date / role]\n- 6-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n- 8-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n\n## Open Items and Assumptions\n- [Asserted causes still missing evidence]\n- [Unknown Phase 1 inputs]\n- [Containment gaps still open]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"# 8D Corrective Action Report — DRAFT\n\n**Report No.:** [TBD by user]\n**Customer / Receiver:** [name]\n**Part No. / Program:** [part], [program]\n**Defect Mode:** [single mode]\n**Issued:** [today's date]\n**Status:** DRAFT — requires sign-off by Quality Engineer of Record and Customer-Quality counterpart before transmittal\n\n---\n\n## D0 — Emergency Response Action\n[ERA description, owner, effective-from datetime, qty scope — or \"N/A\"]\n\n## D1 — Team (by role)\n- 8D Champion: [role]\n- Quality Engineer: [role]\n- Process Owner: [role]\n- Operator / Inspector: [role]\n- Design / SQE: [role, if applicable]\n- Customer-Quality counterpart: [role]\n\n## D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What | | | |\n| Where | | | |\n| When | | | |\n| How much | | | |\n| Who | | | |\n\n## D3 — Interim Containment Action\n| Location | Method | Owner | Start | Qty | Effectiveness |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows; flag any open containment gap]\n\n## D4 — Root Cause\n\n### Technical (Occurrence) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n### Systemic (Detection / Escape) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D5 — Permanent Corrective Action\n| Cause | Action | Owner | Target Date | Effectiveness Criterion |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D6 — Implementation Evidence Required\n- [evidence item per D5 action]\n\n## D7 — Systemic Preventive Action\n- PFMEA update: [line item, new RPN target]\n- Control plan update: [revision to be issued]\n- Lessons-learned share: [audience, channel, date]\n- Read-across: [parts/processes evaluated, outcome]\n\n## D8 — Closure\n- Closure date and approver (role): [date / role]\n- 6-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n- 8-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n\n## Open Items and Assumptions\n- [Asserted causes still missing evidence]\n- [Unknown Phase 1 inputs]\n- [Containment gaps still open]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"# 8D Corrective Action Report — DRAFT\n\n**Report No.:** [TBD by user]\n**Customer / Receiver:** [name]\n**Part No. / Program:** [part], [program]\n**Defect Mode:** [single mode]\n**Issued:** [today's date]\n**Status:** DRAFT — requires sign-off by Quality Engineer of Record and Customer-Quality counterpart before transmittal\n\n---\n\n## D0 — Emergency Response Action\n[ERA description, owner, effective-from datetime, qty scope — or \"N/A\"]\n\n## D1 — Team (by role)\n- 8D Champion: [role]\n- Quality Engineer: [role]\n- Process Owner: [role]\n- Operator / Inspector: [role]\n- Design / SQE: [role, if applicable]\n- Customer-Quality counterpart: [role]\n\n## D2 — Problem Description (Is / Is-Not)\n| Dimension | Is | Is-Not | Source |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| What | | | |\n| Where | | | |\n| When | | | |\n| How much | | | |\n| Who | | | |\n\n## D3 — Interim Containment Action\n| Location | Method | Owner | Start | Qty | Effectiveness |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows; flag any open containment gap]\n\n## D4 — Root Cause\n\n### Technical (Occurrence) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n### Systemic (Detection / Escape) — 5-Why\n| # | Why | Evidence Type | Status |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D5 — Permanent Corrective Action\n| Cause | Action | Owner | Target Date | Effectiveness Criterion |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n[rows]\n\n## D6 — Implementation Evidence Required\n- [evidence item per D5 action]\n\n## D7 — Systemic Preventive Action\n- PFMEA update: [line item, new RPN target]\n- Control plan update: [revision to be issued]\n- Lessons-learned share: [audience, channel, date]\n- Read-across: [parts/processes evaluated, outcome]\n\n## D8 — Closure\n- Closure date and approver (role): [date / role]\n- 6-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n- 8-month effectiveness check: [date, metric]\n\n## Open Items and Assumptions\n- [Asserted causes still missing evidence]\n- [Unknown Phase 1 inputs]\n- [Containment gaps still open]"}],"parameters":null,"dependencies":[],"permissions":[],"extractedFiles":[{"path":"SKILL.md","content":"---\nname: eight-d-corrective-action-report\ndescription: >\n  Use this skill when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or\n  manufacturing engineer needs to draft an 8D corrective action report for a\n  nonconformance, SCAR, customer complaint, or recurring defect. Produces a\n  DRAFT OEM-ready D0–D8 report with 5-Why root cause analysis, corrective-vs-\n  preventive action matrix, and verification schedule for quality-engineer\n  sign-off.\n---\n\n# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\nYou are a manufacturing quality engineer trained in the Eight Disciplines (8D) problem-solving methodology used under IATF 16949 (automotive), AS9100 (aerospace), and ISO 13485 (medical devices). Your job is to turn a raw nonconformance, customer complaint, or supplier corrective action request (SCAR) into an OEM-ready DRAFT 8D report that the quality engineer of record can sign off and transmit.\n\n**Default scope:** A single defect mode on a single part or program. If the trigger involves multiple unrelated defect modes, draft one 8D per mode.\n\n## Flow\n\nFollow these phases in order. Ask **one question at a time** when required inputs are missing. Wait for the answer before continuing. Do not draft any 8D content until Phase 1 is fully confirmed.\n\n---\n\n## Phase 1: Scope and Intake\n\n### Step 1: Safety and Recall Gate\n\nBefore anything else, ask whether the defect mode could plausibly cause:\n\n- Personal injury, fire, smoke, or loss of vehicle / equipment control\n- A regulatory reportable event (NHTSA, FDA MDR, FAA SDR, EU CE incident)\n- Field action, stop-ship, or recall\n\nIf the answer is **yes** or **unclear**, stop. Instruct the user to escalate to the customer-quality lead, the regulatory/legal owner, and the plant manager before continuing. Do not draft an 8D for a potentially recall-class event in this session.\n\n### Step 2: Collect Required Inputs\n\nAsk for each of the following — one question at a time — and do not proceed until every Required input is captured:\n\n| Input | Required? | Examples |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Trigger | Required | Customer complaint, internal NCR, SCAR, warranty return, audit finding, recurrence of closed 8D |\n| Reporting customer / receiver | Required | OEM and division (e.g., \"Ford NA — Dearborn Assembly\"), internal department, or supplier |\n| Part number and program | Required | Part No., revision, program/model year |\n| Defect mode (one mode per 8D) | Required | \"Right-hand bracket weld porosity exceeding ISO 5817 level B\" |\n| Defect quantification | Required | PPM, parts affected, lots affected, dates |\n| Detection point | Required | Customer line, incoming inspection, in-process, end-of-line test, field/warranty |\n| Current containment status | Required | Sort active at customer? Internal stock segregated? Yes/No with quantity |\n| Previous 8D for same mode? | Required | Yes (number + close date) or No |\n\nOptional but useful: existing FMEA reference and RPN, control plan line, drawing/spec callout, process step, supplier of the affected featu"},{"path":"README.md","content":"# 8D Corrective Action Report\n\n**Platforms:** Claude · Openclaw · Codex\n**Domain:** Manufacturing\n\n## Purpose\n\nDrafts a complete Eight Disciplines (8D) corrective action report for a manufacturing nonconformance, supplier defect, internal scrap event, or customer complaint. Covers the full D0–D8 sequence used by OEM-mandated complaint handling under IATF 16949, including emergency response action, containment, 5-Why root cause analysis, and the corrective-vs-preventive action matrix with verification dates.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Customer complaint or warranty escalation requiring a formal 8D response (Ford, VW, Stellantis, BMW, Toyota and other automotive / aerospace / medical-device OEMs)\n- Internal nonconformance reports (NCRs) and high-PPM scrap events\n- Supplier corrective action requests (SCAR) issued by a Tier 1 or OEM customer\n- Recurrence of a previously closed defect — re-opening or escalating an existing 8D\n- IATF 16949 / AS9100 / ISO 13485 problem-solving evidence for audit\n\n## What It Does\n\n**Phase 1: Scope and Intake**\n1. Collects the trigger (customer complaint / internal NCR / SCAR / recurrence), reporting customer, part/program, affected lots, observed defect, current containment status, and any safety/regulatory implications\n2. Confirms the team (D1) by role rather than name and verifies the problem-statement quantification (PPM, ppk impact, parts affected) before drafting\n3. Tags every input as Confirmed / Assumed / Unknown and refuses to proceed if safety, regulatory, or recall risk is unclear\n\n**Phase 2: Root Cause and Containment**\n4. Drafts D0 (emergency response action) and D3 (interim containment) with quantities, locations, and effective-from dates\n5. Builds a 5-Why chain for both the technical cause (why the defect occurred) and the systemic / detection cause (why the system did not prevent or detect it)\n6. Maps each Why to an evidence type (measurement data, process record, FMEA reference, control plan line) and flags any Why that is asserted without evidence\n\n**Phase 3: Corrective Action and Verification**\n7. Produces D5 permanent corrective actions tied 1:1 to the root causes, with owners, target dates, and a measurable effectiveness criterion\n8. Produces D6 implementation evidence prompts and D7 systemic preventive actions (FMEA update, control plan update, lessons-learned share)\n9. Closes with D8 team recognition and a 6- and 8-month effectiveness check schedule\n10. Runs a quality-gate checklist (no root cause skipped to symptom, no preventive action recycled from corrective, no missing verification date) before the report is considered submittable\n\n## Output\n\nA complete 8D report (D0–D8) with a problem-statement quantification block, a 5-Why technical and systemic chain, a corrective-vs-preventive action matrix, and a verification schedule. Marked **DRAFT** and explicitly requires sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality representative before transmittal.\n\n## Notes\n\nThe skill never invents m"},{"path":"_meta.json","content":"{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn798vfcxrgjdt230v34k8eqf584vpwv\",\n  \"slug\": \"eight-d-corrective-action-report\",\n  \"version\": \"0.1.2\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1779961767714\n}"},{"path":"CHANGELOG.md","content":"# Changelog\n\n## [0.1.2] - 2026-05-28\nRewrote frontmatter description to concise 200–500 character format for improved agent-trigger clarity.\n\n## [0.1.1] - 2026-05-21\n\n### Added\n- Feedback prompt in README.md and conditional feedback section in SKILL.md\n\n## [0.1.0] - 2026-05-21\nInitial release. Three-phase workflow covering scoped intake, IATF 16949-aligned D0–D8 drafting with 5-Why root cause, and a corrective vs. preventive action matrix with verification dates and reviewer sign-off prompts."},{"path":"skill-card.md","content":"## Description:\n\nUse this skill when a quality engineer, supplier-quality engineer, or manufacturing engineer needs to draft an 8D corrective action report for a nonconformance, SCAR, customer complaint, or recurring defect.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[archlab-space](https://clawhub.ai/user/archlab-space)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nQuality, supplier-quality, and manufacturing engineers use this skill to draft OEM-ready 8D corrective action reports for nonconformances, SCARs, customer complaints, and recurring defects. The generated report remains a draft and requires quality-engineer and customer-quality sign-off before transmittal.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The output is a draft quality document and may be mistaken for an approved customer or regulatory response.\n\nMitigation: Require review and sign-off by the quality engineer of record and the customer-quality counterpart before transmittal.\n\nRisk: A defect with safety, regulatory, stop-ship, field-action, or recall implications could be handled in-session instead of escalated.\n\nMitigation: Use the skill's safety and recall gate; when risk is present or unclear, escalate to customer-quality, legal or regulatory owners, and plant leadership before drafting.\n\nRisk: Customer names, supplier data, part numbers, drawings, and measurement details may be confidential.\n\nMitigation: Keep customer and supplier data confidential, avoid external disclosure, and do not use confidential details in examples or tool calls.\n\nRisk: Quantitative manufacturing facts such as PPM, RPN, measurements, revision numbers, and dates may be hallucinated or overfilled.\n\nMitigation: Use only user-supplied values and mark missing quantitative facts as Unknown until verified evidence is provided.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [Text, Markdown, Guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown draft report with tables, checklist items, and sign-off prompts]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Produces a D0-D8 draft report, 5-Why root-cause chains, corrective and preventive action items, and verification schedule prompts.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n0.1.2 (source: server release evidence and changelog, released 2026-05-28)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment."}],"languages":[],"docsSourceLabel":"CLAWHUB","editorialOverview":null,"editorialQuality":{"score":100,"threshold":65,"status":"thin","wordCount":1715,"uniquenessScore":43,"reasons":["uniqueness-below-45"]}},"media":{"evidence":{"source":"no-media","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.661Z","emptyReason":"No screenshots, media assets, or demo links are available."},"primaryImageUrl":null,"mediaAssetCount":0,"assets":[],"demoUrl":null},"ownerResources":{"evidence":{"source":"unclaimed","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T22:53:39.661Z","emptyReason":"This page has not been claimed by the agent owner."},"hasCustomPage":false,"customPageUpdatedAt":null,"customLinks":[],"structuredLinks":{"docsUrl":null,"demoUrl":null,"supportUrl":null,"pricingUrl":null,"statusUrl":null},"customPage":null},"relatedAgents":{"evidence":{"source":"protocol-neighbors","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-14T13:11:26.274Z","emptyReason":null},"items":[{"id":"8ebccd8e-3863-4187-8355-c3f14e1f9edf","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/iofficeai-aionui","slug":"iofficeai-aionui","name":"AionUi","description":"Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!","url":"https://github.com/iOfficeAI/AionUi","homepage":"https://www.aionui.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-10-09T19:11:12.944Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:16.584Z","downloads":null},{"id":"b917f68a-ebff-438e-84f8-3f4b2494c0bc","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/activepieces-activepieces","slug":"activepieces-activepieces","name":"activepieces","description":"AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents","url":"https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces","homepage":"https://www.activepieces.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T02:22:12.426Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:12.412Z","downloads":null},{"id":"5cb26759-3a39-483f-94cf-276a98c13bb8","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/cherryhq-cherry-studio","slug":"cherryhq-cherry-studio","name":"cherry-studio","description":"AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants. Unified access to frontier LLMs","url":"https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studio","homepage":"https://cherry-ai.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-11T14:38:40.986Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:19.379Z","downloads":null},{"id":"6f6582d0-5d76-4f0f-b81d-86520247950b","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/copilotkit-copilotkit","slug":"copilotkit-copilotkit","name":"CopilotKit","description":"The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular","url":"https://github.com/CopilotKit/CopilotKit","homepage":"https://docs.copilotkit.ai","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T09:50:57.846Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:39:14.617Z","downloads":null}],"links":{"hub":"/agent","source":"/agent/source/clawhub","protocols":[{"label":"OpenClaw","href":"/agent/protocol/openclew"}]}}}