Conciseness

The 39-line body is dense and lean — every rule adds skill-specific knowledge (max_items defaults, double-encoded IRIs, the "..." UI truncation caveat) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Matches the 5 anchor: every token earns its place.

Actionability

The body gives a copy-paste-ready bash invocation plus three concrete JSON payload patterns covering the common endpoint cases (search, term lookup, descendants), with the exact base_url and record_path values. This matches the 5 anchor for fully executable, example-covered guidance.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-task skill (39 lines, one action: pipe a JSON config into scripts/rest_request.py) and the action is unambiguous — build the JSON with base_url and path, run the script, summarize the records, with save_raw as the fallback for full payloads. Per the simple-skill note, this warrants 5; there are no destructive or batch operations so the validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines with no need for external references: sections are well-organized (Operating rules, Execution behavior, Input, Output, Execution, References), the References section explicitly bounds the package to SKILL.md plus scripts/rest_request.py, and that script exists in the bundle. Matches the guideline and 5 anchor for simple skills.

Specificity

The description names the domain (EFO OLS4) and several concrete actions — "search, term lookup, children, and descendants" — matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor coverage gaps. It falls short of 5 because the actions are endpoint types rather than fully elaborated capabilities (no mention of what is returned).

Completeness

Both parts are present: the what ("Submit compact EFO OLS4 requests for search, term lookup, children, and descendants") and an explicit "Use when a user wants concise EFO resolution or ontology-expansion summaries" clause. The when-clause could be more specific with concrete trigger phrases, so it matches the 4 anchor rather than 5.

Trigger Term Quality

"EFO", "OLS4", "ontology-expansion", and "term lookup" give good keyword coverage of natural phrasing users would say. Not 5 because the spelled-out "Experimental Factor Ontology" and the bare "OLS" synonym are missing; not 3 because coverage goes beyond just "some relevant keywords".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"EFO OLS4" carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with other skills, matching the 5 anchor for minimal conflict risk.