ppap-checker
Interactive PPAP completeness checker — walks through all 18 PPAP elements for a given submission level, identifies missing or incomplete items, and generates a gap report before PSW signature. Use when preparing a PPAP submission, reviewing a supplier's PPAP package, or determining what is still required before customer submission. Covers AIAG PPAP 4th Edition.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-13
- Stars
- ★ 1.6k
- Forks
- 483
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- ppap-checker
- license
- MIT
- metadata
- { "author": "RBraga01", "domain": "quality-engineering", "status": "approved", "created": "2026-06-06", "version": "1.1", "subdomain": "planning", "iatf-16949": "8.3.4, 8.4.1", "industries": "automotive,electronics,aerospace,medical,general", "updated_by": "migmcc", "reviewed_by": "RBraga01", "last_updated": "2026-06-06", "aiag-reference": "AIAG PPAP 4th Edition", "standard_edition": "AIAG PPAP 4th Edition (2006)" }
- description
- Interactive PPAP completeness checker — walks through all 18 PPAP elements for a given submission level, identifies missing or incomplete items, and generates a gap report before PSW signature. Use when preparing a PPAP submission, reviewing a supplier's PPAP package, or determining what is still required before customer submission. Covers AIAG PPAP 4th Edition.
03 SKILL.md 正文
PPAP Checker Agent
When to use
Use this agent when:
- Preparing a PPAP package and want to verify nothing is missing before submission
- Reviewing a supplier's incoming PPAP and need a systematic gap assessment
- Confirming which elements are required for a specific PPAP level
- Generating a PPAP gap report for a customer or management review
Prerequisites
None. The agent will ask for all required information.
Workflow
The agent runs interactively in two modes:
MODE A: Submission preparation (build a PPAP)
The agent guides the user through each of the 18 PPAP elements in sequence, asking:
- Is this element complete? (Yes / No / Partial / N/A)
- If Yes: what document is this recorded in? (for evidence traceability)
- If No or Partial: what is missing?
At the end, the agent produces:
- Element-by-element status table
- Gap list with specific missing items
- Readiness verdict: Ready to submit / Not ready — n items outstanding
MODE B: Incoming PPAP review (audit a supplier's PPAP)
The agent asks the user to describe what the supplier has submitted for each element, then evaluates completeness and flags deficiencies.
Agent behaviour
Opening: Ask the user which mode they need (preparation vs. review), which PPAP Level (1–5), and which OEM customer is receiving the PPAP (to apply OEM-specific validation rules).
Production trial run check: Before reviewing individual elements, ask: "How many consecutive parts were produced in the production trial run?" If fewer than 300 (without written customer authorisation), flag immediately — the PPAP samples and capability data come from this run and the submission cannot be recommended until the run meets the minimum or a customer waiver is on file.
Level awareness: Skip elements that are not required for the stated level, and note which elements are optional vs. mandatory.
Validation gates per element:
| Element | Key validation question |
|---|---|
| 1 Design Records | Is the drawing at the correct, released revision? |
| 2 Engineering Change Documents | Is there an approved change document if a design change is involved? |
| 3 Customer Engineering Approval | Is written customer engineering sign-off obtained? |
| 4 DFMEA | Are all H-AP items actioned? Is it at the correct revision? |
| 5 Process Flow | Does it cover all operations from incoming material to shipment? |
| 6 PFMEA | Are all H-AP items actioned? Is it aligned with the Process Flow? |
| 7 Control Plan | Does it cover all special characteristics? Is it linked to the PFMEA? |
| 8 MSA | Is %GRR < 30% for all measurement systems on SC characteristics? Is ndc ≥ 5? |
| 9 Dimensional Results | Are ALL ballooned characteristics 100% conforming? Parts identified by cavity? |
| 10 Material/Performance Tests | Are all tests passed? Are lab reports from accredited labs? |
| 11 Initial Process Studies | Is Cpk ≥ 1.67 on all special characteristics? If Cpk 1.33–1.67: flag as conditional — customer monitoring required. If Cpk 1.00–1.33: block — 100% inspection AND customer-approved deviation required. If Cpk < 1.00: block — cannot submit. |
| 12 Qualified Lab Documentation | Are test labs accredited (ISO 17025 or equivalent)? |
| 13 AAR | Required only for appearance parts — is customer sign-off obtained? |
| 14 Sample Parts | Are parts from the production run (not prototype)? Labelled correctly? |
| 15 Master Sample | Is a signed master sample retained at the supplier? |
| 16 Checking Aids | Are all gauges calibrated? MSA complete for variable gauges? |
| 17 Customer-Specific Requirements | OEM-specific CSR items — confirmed with customer? |
| 18 PSW | Is it the correct form for this OEM? Signed by Quality Manager? |
Blocking conditions: The agent will flag and block submission recommendation if:
- Any dimensional result is out of specification
- Production trial run fewer than 300 consecutive parts without written customer authorisation
- Cpk < 1.33 on a special characteristic without a customer-approved deviation and 100% inspection plan
- %GRR > 30% without explanation
- PSW unsigned or signed by someone other than Quality Manager
- PSW form is the generic AIAG form when the customer requires an OEM-specific form (Ford requires Ford PSW; BMW requires Form 1410)
Output Format
Ask once at the start of the session:
"How would you like to receive the output? A — Structured Markdown (formatted tables and sections, ready to copy) B — Plain tables (simplified structure for Excel or Word) C — Narrative report (flowing text for a formal document or email)
Default: A."
Apply the chosen format to all outputs generated during the session.
Changelog
| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-06-06 | @RBraga01 | Initial release |
| 1.1 | 2026-06-06 | @migmcc | Added production trial run check (300-part minimum); added OEM customer question at opening; corrected Element 11 Cpk thresholds (1.00–1.33 requires 100% inspection + waiver); added blocking condition for wrong PSW form |
04 同仓库更多 Skills
migrate-to-e2e
Moves an existing Playwright, Cypress, Selenium, Appium, Detox, Maestro, or TesterArmy suite to e2e one slice at a time, with the old suite running beside the new one until each ported test is proven. Keeps a MIGRATION.md progress file so any later session resumes where the last stopped. Optionally plants a defect to show both suites catch it. Use for /migrate-to-e2e, "migrate our tests to e2e", "port these Maestro flows", "move our TesterArmy tests", or when a project has an e2e config and an older suite still running.
e2e
Writes, runs, and debugs end-to-end tests for web and mobile apps with e2e, the agentic test runner, which mixes agent.act goals with exact locator assertions on a Playwright browser or an iOS or Android device. Also drives a project's running app live over the e2e MCP server to look at a screen, check a UI change, take a screenshot or record a video, and try a locator; and runs bug bashes, parallel e2e explore runs with each bug proven by a repro test. Use when a project depends on e2e or has an e2e.config.ts, when asked for end-to-end, browser, mobile, or agentic UI tests, to check a change in the running app, to QA or bug bash an app or branch, or when an e2e run fails.
create-verification-skill
Generate a project-local verify-<app> skill on top of e2e, so any coding agent can launch the app, check it is worth driving, exercise a feature the way a user does, keep evidence, and bug bash it. Writes the skill, a feature map with one explore charter per feature, and proves it once. Use for /create-verification-skill, "make a verification skill for this repo", or when a project has no scripted way to prove UI behavior.
deja-search
deja-vu memory — search the user's past AI coding sessions with the deja CLI. Holds what they already settled and never wrote into the repo (naming rules, banned or already-tried tools, required checks before merge, preferred values, who owns what). Use before your first edit in a task, before you call a change done or ready to merge, before you recommend a tool, library, design or reviewer, before re-debugging an error that may already be solved, when they say 'didn't we fix this before', 'what did we decide about X' or 'I already have that', and before telling them something on this machine does not exist.
deja-reflect
End-of-session reflection and memory curation with deja-vu. Review what was decided, what commands broke and what repaired them, and record durable project rules or decisions with deja remember so the next session starts with them.
revid
Make, edit, export and post AI videos with Revid (revid.ai) through the Revid MCP server. Use whenever the user wants a short-form or long-form video made (from an idea, a script, a URL, an article, a PDF, a tweet, a product page, their own clips, or a song), wants to find what is going viral on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram or X before making something, wants to edit or re-export an existing Revid project, generate a standalone AI image or clip, make a series episode, or publish and schedule a finished video to connected social accounts. Covers setup (hosted MCP with OAuth, or an API key), the 36 tools, credits, polling and the rules for publishing. Routes to the more specific revid-* skills when one fits.