VDA 6.3 Process Audit
SkillDev toolsVDA 6.3 Process Audit, conduct or prepare for a process audit using the VDA 6.3 methodology, evaluate process elements P1, P7, calculate degree of fulfillment, classify findings, and generate an audit report. Use when a customer requests a VDA 6.3 audit, when auditing a supplier's manufacturing process, or when preparing for a VDA process audit visit. Covers VDA 6.3 4th edition (2023).
Use VDA 6.3 Process Audit in Claude, ChatGPT or Ahel Desktop
Free. Sign in, add VDA 6.3 Process Audit and connect your AI. About a minute.
Also: Claude Code · Cursor · Codex
Then ask your AI: use the VDA 6.3 Process Audit skill
Details
Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.
Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; Ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.
No other account needed.
Add Ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins in plugins/RBraga01/Quality-Engineering-Skills/skills/audit/vda-6-3-audit/SKILL.md and read by Ahel’s review.
When to use
Use this skill when:
- Conducting a VDA 6.3 process audit at a supplier or internally
- Preparing for an OEM process audit visit (BMW, VW, Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, Stellantis)
- Auditing a new supplier during qualification
- Responding to a customer concern by conducting a focused process audit
- Evaluating a supplier's manufacturing process capability before SOP
Prerequisites
- Customer audit scope (which process/product to audit)
- VDA 6.3 question catalogue (the auditor works from the standard questions)
- Process Flow Diagram, PFMEA, Control Plan, and Work Instructions for the audited process
- Access to the production area, equipment records, personnel, and quality records
Workflow
Step 1 — VDA 6.3 Structure Overview
VDA 6.3 is organised into 7 process elements (P1–P7):
| Element | Name | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | Potential Analysis | New suppliers — evaluates readiness before series production |
| P2 | Project Management | APQP and product/process development process |
| P3 | Planning the Product and Process Development | Design and process planning activities |
| P4 | Supplier Management (Purchasing) | Sub-supplier control and qualification |
| P5 | Process Input / Series | Incoming materials and components |
| P6 | Process Execution / Customer Satisfaction / Service | The manufacturing process itself |
| P7 | Customer Support / Customer Satisfaction / Service | Delivery performance, escalation, field support |
For a focused series production audit (most common): P5, P6, P7 are mandatory. P1–P4 are added for new supplier qualification or product launch audits.
Step 2 — Rating system
Every question in VDA 6.3 is scored on a 0–10 scale:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 10 | All requirements fulfilled — systematic, effective, and documented evidence exists |
| 8 | Requirement largely fulfilled — minor gaps, no systematic risk |
| 6 | Requirement partially fulfilled — deviations exist, limited risk |
| 4 | Requirement insufficiently fulfilled — significant gaps, risk to quality |
| 2 | Requirement not fulfilled — systematic failure, high risk |
| 0 | Not applicable OR not fulfilled with no evidence |
A score of 4 or less on any question is a deficiency and must be documented with a finding and corrective action requirement.
Step 3 — Degree of Fulfillment calculation
For each process element:
Element score (%) = (Sum of all question scores) / (Maximum possible score) × 100
Weighting system (critical): Each question in the VDA 6.3 question catalogue has a pre-assigned weighting factor of 1, 2, or 3. These weights are fixed in the standard — the auditor cannot change them. Questions covering safety-critical topics (error-proofing, special characteristics control, non-conformance segregation) typically carry weight 2 or 3. The maximum possible score per question = 10 × weighting factor.
To calculate the degree of fulfillment correctly:
- Use the official VDA 6.3 question catalogue, which lists each question with its weight
- Sum (score × weight) for all applicable questions in the element
- Divide by the sum of (10 × weight) for all applicable questions
- Do not average raw scores — applying equal weight to all questions is a calculation error that produces incorrect element ratings
If a question is not applicable (N/A), it is excluded from both the numerator and denominator.
VDA 6.3 rating thresholds
| Degree of fulfillment | Rating | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| ≥ 90% | A | Process suitable for series production — no significant concerns |
| 75% – < 90% | B | Conditionally suitable — corrective actions required within agreed timeframe |
| < 75% | C | Not suitable — series production release blocked until corrective action complete |
A rating of C blocks SOP — the customer will not release the supplier for series production until re-audit achieves at least B.
Step 4 — P6 — Process Execution (the core audit)
P6 is the most extensive element and covers the actual manufacturing process. Key areas:
P6.1 — Process inputs
- Are incoming materials and components controlled?
- Are change management procedures in place and effective?
- Are specifications current and accessible at point of use?
P6.2 — Personnel
- Are operators qualified and trained for the tasks they perform?
- Are training records current?
- Is a qualification matrix maintained and used?
P6.3 — Resources (equipment, tools, gauges)
- Is equipment maintained per a preventive maintenance plan?
- Are calibration records current for all measurement equipment?
- Are work instructions present at every workstation and at the correct revision?
P6.4 — Failure mode prevention (error-proofing)
- Are poka-yoke devices in place for all High-AP failure modes?
- Are error-proofing devices checked at the correct frequency?
- Is the check result documented?
P6.5 — Quality inspections and tests
- Are incoming inspection, in-process inspection, and final inspection defined and performed?
- Are inspection records maintained and traceable?
- Is SPC in place for all special characteristics?
P6.6 — Non-conformance management
- Is non-conforming material identified, segregated, and controlled?
- Is there a defined reaction plan for out-of-control conditions?
- Are non-conformances escalated to quality and documented?
P6.7 — Continuous improvement
- Are quality KPIs tracked (reject rate, scrap, rework, OEE)?
- Are improvement actions driven by data?
- Are lessons learned captured and applied?
Step 5 — Conduct the audit
Pre-audit:
- Request all relevant documentation: Process Flow, PFMEA, Control Plan, WIs, maintenance records, calibration records, training records
- Review and identify gaps before the site visit
- Confirm auditor qualification: VDA 6.3 audits require a trained, qualified auditor — internal auditors must hold a recognised VDA 6.3 auditor qualification (VDA QMC certification or OEM-equivalent). An unqualified person conducting the audit invalidates the result.
- Confirm auditor independence: the auditor must not have direct responsibility for the process being audited. Self-assessment by the process owner is not a substitute for an independent audit.
Opening meeting:
- Confirm scope, timing, and audit plan
- Introduce audit team and request the process owner to accompany
Process walk (the audit):
- Follow the process flow physically — start from incoming material, end at shipment
- For each step: observe, ask, verify records
- Ask: "Show me the record for this" — never accept verbal confirmation
- Score each question in real time; document evidence (positive and negative)
Findings classification:
- Score 6: Partial fulfilment — finding documented, corrective action required; deadline typically 90 days
- Score 4: Insufficient fulfilment — significant gap, represents active risk to quality; escalate deadline; customer OEMs often treat score-4 findings on critical questions (P6.4, P6.5, P6.6) as major deficiencies requiring immediate corrective action
- Score 2: Not fulfilled — systematic failure, high risk; corrective action with accelerated timeline required before next delivery
- Score 0: No evidence / not implemented — blocking; re-audit required before SOP release (if P1 applicable)
Closing meeting:
- Present scores and degree of fulfillment per element
- Confirm overall rating (A, B, or C)
- Agree on corrective action deadlines (typically 90 days for B-rating findings; accelerated for score-2 and score-4 findings)
- For B rating: schedule a follow-up audit or evidence review within 3 months to verify corrective actions are implemented — do not close the audit without this commitment in writing
- Confirm re-audit requirements if applicable (mandatory for C rating)
Step 6 — Audit report structure
The VDA 6.3 report must contain:
- Audit information: date, location, auditor, auditee, scope
- Degree of fulfillment per element (P1–P7 as applicable)
- Overall rating (A, B, C)
- Finding list: for each score ≤ 6 — question, observation, evidence, score, deadline
- Positive findings: best practices worth noting
- Corrective action plan (CAP): supplier-signed, with root cause and due date per finding
- Re-audit requirement if C rating
Validation criteria
A VDA 6.3 audit is complete when:
- All applicable elements (P5, P6, P7 minimum for series) have been scored
- All findings (score ≤ 6) are documented with evidence
- Degree of fulfillment calculated and overall rating stated
- Corrective action plan signed by supplier quality management
- Re-audit scheduled if rating is C
Common mistakes
- Auditor accepts verbal confirmation as evidence — always request the record
- Skipping the process walk and only reviewing documents — P6 requires observation of the live process
- Not documenting positive evidence — the report must balance findings and strengths
- Calculating degree of fulfillment without applying question weights
- Not confirming error-proofing device checks are being performed at the required frequency
- Closing meeting without confirming the corrective action deadline in writing
- Rating B without scheduling a follow-up to verify corrective actions are implemented
Output Format
At the start of each use, ask the user:
"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."
Adapt all output sections to the chosen format. If the platform or session context already defines a format preference, skip this question.
Changelog
| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-06-06 | @RBraga01 | Initial release |
| 1.1 | 2026-06-06 | @migmcc | Expanded weighting system explanation in Step 3; added auditor qualification and independence requirements; improved findings classification (score 4 vs 6 distinction); added B-rating follow-up timeline |
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 1k
- Forks
- 316
- Last commit
- Oct 2026
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
vda-6-3-audit- Source
- github.com/hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins
github.com/hashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins
Related picks
Skill · larksuite
The pick for Markdownmarkdown-formatter
Skill · nvidia
The pick for Markdownprospecting
Skill · coreyhaines31
The pick for Companiesquantitative-screening
Skill · agentii-ai
The pick for Companiesteach
Skill · mattpocock
More in Dev toolsimplement
Skill · mattpocock
More in Dev tools