Customers read an 8D to answer three questions: are we protected now (D3), do you know why it happened and why you
did not catch it (D4), and will it stay fixed everywhere (D5-D7)? scripts/eightd_check.py reviews an 8D the way a
customer quality engineer does and shows which disciplines are complete.
Trigger Conditions
Activate this skill when the user:
- Received a customer complaint that requires an 8D
- Needs to review a supplier's 8D before accepting it
- Is leading or coaching an 8D team
- Had an 8D rejected by a customer
For simpler internal problems use capa-plan-writer; for the cause analysis itself, five-whys-analysis-facilitator and quality-fishbone-diagram-builder.
Workflow
D0 Emergency response: safety, line-stop, notify
D1 Champion + cross-functional team (>= 3 roles)
D2 5W2H + is / is-not; effect only, no cause (problem-description-tools.md)
D3 Contain within 24 h: stock, WIP, transit, customer; verify; clean point
D4 Occurrence AND escape root cause, each verified; systemic cause
D5 Action per cause, verified by trial before implementation
D6 Implement, validate with production data, then remove D3
D7 PFMEA, control plan, WIs, read-across to similar products and sites
D8 Close with the customer; recognise the team
CHECK -> python scripts/eightd_check.py 8d.jsonContent, deadlines and rejection reasons per discipline, occurrence/escape/systemic legs, verification vs validation and the clean point: 8d-disciplines.md.
Checks (eightd_check.py)
| Code | Severity | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| 8D01 | medium | Team under 3 roles or no champion |
| 8D02 | high | D2 misses 5W2H elements or is/is-not, or states a cause |
| 8D03 | high | D3 missing, unverified or later than 24 h |
| 8D04 | high | Occurrence or escape cause missing, unverified or human error |
| 8D05 | high | No action for occurrence or escape, or actions not verified |
| 8D06 | medium | No validation, or containment not removed |
| 8D07 | medium | No FMEA / control plan update or read-across |
| 8D08 | medium | Dates out of order; D4 later than target |
| 8D09 | low | D8 missing |
8D 8D-C40: D1 -- D2 -- D3 -- D4 -- D5 -- D6 -- D7 -- D8 --
8D04 [high] D4: occurrence cause 'Operator error' is human error; why did the process allow it?
8D04 [high] D4: no escape root cause (why was it not detected?)Output Format
Deliver the 8D as one section per discipline (D0-D8) with dates and owners, D2 as a 5W2H table plus is/is-not
table, D4 with occurrence, escape and systemic causes and their verification evidence, D5/D6 as an action table
(action, cause leg, owner, verification, implementation date, validation result), and D7 listing every document
and similar product updated. Finish with the eightd_check.py status line.
Scripts
python scripts/eightd_check.py 8d.json
python scripts/eightd_check.py 8d.json --d3-hours 48 --d4-days 15 # customer-specific deadlinesKeys: id, opened, champion, team, d2 (what, where, when, how_many, how_detected, is_not), d3 (actions, date, verified), d4 (date, occurrence_cause, occurrence_verified, escape_cause, escape_verified, method), d5 (actions with addresses occurrence/escape, verified), d6 (date, validation, containment_removed), d7 (fmea_updated, control_plan_updated, similar_products, lessons_learned), d8 (date, recognition). Exit codes: 0 no high issues, 1 high issues, 2 read or JSON error.
Additional Resources
| File | Content |
|---|---|
| 8d-disciplines.md | Each discipline's content, deadlines and rejection reasons; occurrence/escape/systemic; verification vs validation; clean point |
| problem-description-tools.md | 5W2H, is / is-not with distinctions, problem statement template |
acceptance-sampling-plan-selector
Select and evaluate acceptance sampling plans for incoming, in-process and final inspection: ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 / ISO 2859-1 single sampling under normal inspection (code letter from lot size and inspection level I, II, III, S-1 to S-4; sample size, Ac and Re from AQL, following the table's arrows to the correct plan; 100% when n reaches the lot size; AQLs above 10 per 100 units), operating characteristic curves (Pa at any quality, producer's quality level, indifference point, LTPD, AOQ and AOQL, binomial or hypergeometric), plans designed from producer and consumer risk, and c = 0 zero-acceptance plans. Covers AQL choice by defect class, switching rules between normal, tightened and reduced inspection, when sampling is not appropriate, and random sampling.
approved-supplier-list-manager
Manage and audit an approved supplier list (ASL) / external provider register for ISO 9001 8.4.1, IATF 16949 8.4 and AS9100 8.4.1: supplier status (approved, conditional, probation, pending, disqualified), scope of approval by commodity and process, risk class, certification and expiry, re-evaluation intervals by risk, conditions with end dates, single-source contingency, approver and customer-directed sources. Audits the list for expired or expiring certificates, overdue re-evaluations, conditional or probation status past its decision date, high-risk suppliers without the required certification, single-source suppliers without backup and missing approvers, and checks purchase orders for suppliers that are off-list, disqualified or pending, or buying outside the approved scope. Covers ERP blocks, PO requirements, off-list and emergency purchases.
apqp-phase-planner
Plan and track Advanced Product Quality Planning (AIAG APQP 3rd edition, IATF 16949) for a new or changed automotive part: back-schedule the five phases (plan and define, product design, process design, product and process validation, launch and feedback) from the start-of-production date by program complexity, with overlap, PPAP lead and safe-launch period; list the deliverables and gate for each phase (DFMEA, DVP&R, feasibility, process flow, PFMEA, control plans, MSA, Ppk, run at rate, PPAP, safe launch, lessons learned); adjust for build-to-print suppliers; flag compressed timelines and late or untracked deliverables against a status list. Covers gate reviews, red/yellow/green status reporting, run at rate and safe-launch exit criteria.
as9100-gap-analyzer
Run an AS9100D / EN 9100:2018 gap analysis for aviation, space and defence suppliers on the requirements added to ISO 9001: on-time delivery and conformity focus, management representative, ethics and human-factors awareness, operational planning and operational risk management, configuration management, product safety, counterfeit-part prevention, special requirements, critical items and key characteristics, external provider register and flow-down, FOD prevention, tooling and NC program control, special process validation, first article inspection (AS9102), traceability, in-service data and nonconforming product control. Generates and scores a worksheet, grades missing core controls as major, and checks invalid n/a claims. Covers AS9101/AS9104, OASIS, AS9102 FAI forms, counterfeit standards (AS5553, AS6174, AS6081), NADCAP and the planned IA9100 transition.
audit-report-writer
Write internal, supplier and pre-certification audit reports with the content ISO 19011:2018 6.5 expects: audit objectives, scope, criteria with revisions, dates, team and auditees, method and sampling statement, specific strengths, findings table and three-part finding details (requirement, evidence, statement), conclusion on the degree of fulfilment of criteria, diverging opinions, follow-up deadlines and distribution. Builds a Markdown report from a JSON audit record, generates the conclusion from the findings (major / minor / none) and flags reports missing required content or findings without clause or evidence. Covers conclusion wording, closing meetings, response expectations and verifying corrective actions.
capa-effectiveness-checker
Verify whether a corrective action actually worked (ISO 9001 10.2.1 d, IATF 16949, 8D D6) with statistics instead of 'no complaints so far': before/after defect-rate comparison with an exact conditional binomial test for Poisson counts and a minimum practical reduction, zero-defect demonstration size (n = ln(1-C)/ln(1-p), rule of three) with progress so far, and exact Clopper-Pearson upper bounds on the post-action defect rate. Returns effective, not yet demonstrated (with the units still needed) or not effective. Covers setting effectiveness criteria when the CAPA is opened, choosing the window by problem frequency, leading indicators for rare failures (Cpk, SPC stability, error-proofing checks, LPA), and traps such as volume changes, detection changes and containment masking.