Conciseness

The body is four lean lines — "This skill has been renamed", "Invoke the configs-targeting skill instead — it contains the current, complete instructions", "update it from aiconfig-targeting to configs-targeting" — with zero padding, zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every token earning its place. It matches the anchor for lean, efficient content exactly; nothing could be trimmed without losing function.

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable and unambiguous: "Invoke the configs-targeting skill instead" names the exact skill to run, and "update it from aiconfig-targeting to configs-targeting" gives the exact rename mapping for stale references. Per the rubric's scoring note, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when the guidance is actionable — here every instruction is concrete.

Workflow Clarity

The single action — redirect to configs-targeting — is completely unambiguous, which per the simple-skill exception warrants a 5, and the body even handles the one conditional branch ("If you arrived here from an old reference (documentation, a saved prompt, or automation), update it"). No validation checkpoints are needed since the operation involves no destructive or batch changes; the "do not perform the task from this skill" guard is itself an explicit safety checkpoint.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is well under 50 lines, has no need of external references, and none exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories) — under the rubric guideline this scores 5 with just well-organized sections. The single H1 title clearly signals the document's purpose, and "it contains the current, complete instructions" cleanly delegates all substance to the successor skill, a one-level-deep handoff.

Specificity

The description states concrete, specific facts and actions — "this skill was renamed to configs-targeting", "Do not use this skill; invoke configs-targeting instead", "Kept only so old references to aiconfig-targeting still point users to the new name" — naming exact skill names and exact behavior. It is not a 5 because the actions are meta/redirect actions rather than a comprehensive list of capability actions, and not a 3 because it goes well beyond naming a domain plus 1–2 actions; it fully specifies the redirect behavior.

Completeness

It clearly answers "what" ("DEPRECATED redirect — this skill was renamed to configs-targeting") and "when" — explicitly: "Do not use this skill; invoke configs-targeting instead" plus "Kept only so old references... still point users to the new name" is equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so the missing-'Use when...' cap at 3 does not bind. It is not 5 because the "when" is a negative/redirect condition rather than concrete positive trigger phrases for the capability, and a user searching by capability learns nothing about when the (renamed) skill applies.

Trigger Term Quality

The only searchable terms are the skill names themselves ("aiconfig-targeting", "configs-targeting") plus "DEPRECATED" and "redirect" — a user following an old reference would say the old name, but the description contains no natural capability keywords at all. It is not 1 because the old-name keyword is a genuine, functional trigger for this stub; it is not 3 because the natural phrases a user would say when needing the underlying capability are entirely absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"DEPRECATED redirect — this skill was renamed to configs-targeting... invoke configs-targeting instead" carves out a precise niche: it should only ever be encountered via the exact old name "aiconfig-targeting" and it explicitly hands off to the successor, so it is virtually unambiguous against any other skill. It does not conflict with configs-targeting — it funnels traffic there.