Food safety compliance checker

Purpose

Take a plain-language description of a kitchen situation, station, or incident and return a severity-ranked list of compliance gaps against ServSafe and FDA Food Code standards — each with the specific standard cited and a concrete corrective step — so a kitchen lead can fix problems before an inspector finds them.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

• Check whether a specific kitchen practice or setup is compliant
• Prepare a station or shift for a health inspection
• Diagnose why a violation was written up or a customer complaint occurred
• Review a described food handling procedure (cooling, thawing, holding, prep)
• Audit a new SOP or line change before rolling it out
• Understand what corrective action a specific problem requires

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

• Situation description: What is happening — the practice, incident, or setup being reviewed (as much detail as possible)
• Operation type: Fast casual, QSR, ghost kitchen, food truck, etc.
• Menu risk profile: Whether the operation handles raw proteins, TCS (time/temperature control for safety) foods, ready-to-eat items, allergens
• Jurisdiction (if known): State or local health authority — code specifics vary; default to FDA Food Code 2022 if unspecified
• Trigger for the check: Routine audit / upcoming inspection / recent violation / customer complaint / incident
• Equipment available: Thermometers, sanitizer type, handwash stations, cold/hot holding units in play

If jurisdiction or equipment details are missing, apply FDA Food Code 2022 defaults and note the assumption.

Instructions

Step 1: Parse the Situation Into Discrete Practices

Break the described situation into individual observable practices. A single description often contains 3–8 separate compliance points. Isolate each one — for example, "chicken thawing on the counter next to prepped salad" contains a thawing violation, a cross-contamination risk, and a potential cold-holding issue.

Step 2: Screen Each Practice Against the Core ServSafe / Food Code Domains

Evaluate every isolated practice across these domains:

• Time & Temperature Control (TCS): Cooking temps (poultry 165°F/15s, ground meat 155°F/17s, seafood/pork 145°F/15s), hot holding ≥135°F, cold holding ≤41°F, cooling (135°F→70°F within 2 hrs, 70°F→41°F within 4 more hrs — 6 hrs total), reheating to 165°F within 2 hrs
• Cross-Contamination: Raw-above-ready-to-eat storage order, separate cutting boards/utensils, allergen segregation, no bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat food
• Personal Hygiene: Handwashing triggers and technique (20s, warm water, soap), glove use, employee illness exclusion/restriction (Big 6 pathogens: Norovirus, Hepatitis A, Shigella, E. coli STEC, Salmonella Typhi, nontyphoidal Salmonella), no eating/drinking in prep areas
• Cleaning & Sanitizing: Correct sanitizer concentration (chlorine 50–100 ppm, quat per manufacturer, iodine 12.5–25 ppm), 3-compartment sink sequence, contact time, wiping cloth storage in sanitizer bucket
• Facilities & Pest: Handwash sink stocked and accessible (not blocked, not used for food/dishes), pest evidence, proper waste handling
• Time as a Public Health Control: If used in place of temperature — documentation, 4-hour or 6-hour limits, discard timing

Step 3: Classify Each Gap by Severity

Assign every identified gap a severity level:

• Critical (Priority): Directly linked to foodborne illness — TCS temperature abuse, cross-contamination of ready-to-eat food, ill employee working, bare-hand contact with RTE, inadequate cooking. These are the violations that close kitchens.
• Major (Priority Foundation): Supports a critical control — no accessible thermometer, unlabeled sanitizer, no date marking, blocked handwash sink.
• Minor (Core): Best-practice or maintenance gaps — worn cutting board, uncovered floor storage, minor labeling issues.

Step 4: Cite the Standard for Each Gap

For every flagged gap, name the specific standard: the FDA Food Code section family (e.g., cooking temps §3-401, date marking §3-501.17, handwashing §2-301) or the ServSafe principle. Do not cite a section number you cannot support — if uncertain, state the standard in plain terms and label it as the applicable Food Code principle.

Step 5: Rank Corrective Actions

Order corrective steps by risk priority — all Critical gaps first, then Major, then Minor. For each corrective step provide:

1. The fix: The exact action to take right now
2. The verification: How to confirm it's corrected (measured temp, tested ppm, visual check)
3. The prevention: The SOP, log, or staff behavior change that stops recurrence

Step 6: Build a Re-Inspection Checklist

Produce a short pass/fail checklist the kitchen lead can walk the station with after corrections — one line per gap, phrased as a yes/no verification.

Output Format

• Structure: Situation summary → itemized gap findings (grouped by severity) → ranked corrective action plan → re-inspection checklist
• Length: 700–1,100 words
• Format: Findings as a structured list with severity tags and cited standards; corrective actions as a numbered priority list; checklist as pass/fail bullets
• Sections: Situation Breakdown → Compliance Gaps (Critical / Major / Minor) → Ranked Corrective Actions → Re-Inspection Checklist
• Tone: Certified food safety manager — direct, specific, non-alarmist; states the temp/ppm/time number every time rather than saying "properly" or "adequately"

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

• [ ] Every discrete practice in the situation has been isolated and evaluated — not just the most obvious one
• [ ] Each flagged gap carries a severity tag (Critical / Major / Minor) and a cited standard or named principle
• [ ] Every temperature, concentration, and time reference includes the actual number, not a vague qualifier
• [ ] Corrective actions are ranked with all Critical items first
• [ ] Each corrective action includes fix + verification + prevention
• [ ] The re-inspection checklist has one verifiable line per identified gap

Notes

• When a description implies a temperature or time but does not state it, flag the missing measurement itself as a gap — inability to verify a control is a finding.
• Local jurisdictions may adopt stricter thresholds (e.g., cold holding at 41°F vs. 45°F under older codes); note where the local authority could differ and default to the stricter standard.
• The most common closable violations in fast casual/QSR are cold-holding temperature abuse, cross-contamination in walk-ins, and blocked or understocked handwash sinks — check these first even if not explicitly described.
• If the situation involves a suspected foodborne illness or an ill employee, treat exclusion/restriction and reporting to the health authority as the first corrective action, ahead of all other fixes.

How to use this skill

This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.

Installing in Claude Code:

• ~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)
• <your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)

Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.

Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:

1. Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
2. Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits

For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills