[aem] Correct Cloud Service and 6.5 LTS READMEs, installation paths, and capability metadata

Start with the root README and the listed Cloud Service and 6.5 LTS README files, then inspect the migration and code-assessment READMEs and Cloud plugin manifest. Compare inventories, paths, installation claims, and capability links against the repository tree and existing documentation. Done means the documented entry points, nested guides, and caveats match the shipped layout, with changed local links and paths resolving.

Scope

Correct the README and descriptive metadata for the Cloud Service and 6.5 LTS plugins, based on checkout 8f35e907 and the external AEM skills review. This is documentation maintenance, not a request to implement new skills, agents, or a new installer.

Runtime technical fixes are tracked in #494 and #495. Naming/discovery/reference ownership belongs in #497. EDS/project-management-specific corrections are deferred.

Verified documentation gaps

DOC-01. Correct repository paths in migration setup instructions

plugins/aem/cloud-service/skills/migration/README.md repeatedly refers to skills/aem/cloud-service and skills/aem/cloud-service/skills/migration/. The actual repository path is plugins/aem/cloud-service.

• Correct repository-relative paths and installation examples against the actual tree.
• Distinguish repository checkout paths from tool-specific installed locations.
• Verify documented npx skills / gh upskill examples before presenting them as supported; do not assume their path flags or dependency handling.
• Keep the migration README consistent with the executable path correction tracked by the structuring work.

DOC-02. Complete the documented inventory without inventing top-level skills

The 6.5 LTS plugin ships top-level skills/tuning-oak-query-indexes/SKILL.md, but both its plugin README and the root README's 6.5 skill table omit it. The code-assessment README lists only three pattern guides despite shipping many more.

• Add the missing 6.5 Oak skill to the appropriate inventory and overview text.
• Update the code-assessment README's pattern inventory or link to a single maintained authoritative catalog.
• Explain that the Cloud Oak guide is currently nested under code-assessment; do not falsely present it as an independently installed top-level Cloud skill.
• Keep inventories and links aligned with the actual entry-point versus nested-guide layout.

DOC-03. Put runtime selection and installation caveats where users install

The root README already warns that Copilot CLI exposes bare names and same-named skills are ambiguous. The runtime plugin READMEs show installation without carrying that warning, despite 16 shared skill names.

• Cross-link the runtime collision warning from both plugin installation sections.
• Document selecting the intended runtime while collisions remain; do not present installing both plugins or unqualified --all as equivalent to selecting the correct runtime.
• State which installation/discovery paths have actually been tested, with versions where available; do not claim every nested guide is directly discoverable everywhere.
• Document prerequisite MCP mode, missing-tool limitations, and the difference between top-level discovery and parent-routed guides.
• Do not repeat unsupported claims that Copilot plugins are unusable: the root README already documents a verified Copilot plugin installation.

DOC-04. Refresh capability metadata and qualify verification claims

The Cloud plugin's .claude-plugin/plugin.json description omits migration, code-assessment, and content-distribution, although these are shipped and documented in its README.

• Update descriptive metadata to match the shipped capabilities.
• Explain plugin-manifest versions versus independently released skill versions if discussing compatibility. A manifest at 1.0.0 is not, by itself, proof that it is stale because some other release is 2.x.
• Distinguish local source analysis from optional dependency-resolution/preflight/build steps that may require external tools or network access. Do not promise that the entire assessment/remediation lifecycle is always offline.
• Do not claim all examples compile or all APIs are validated unless the linked runtime issue's checks provide that evidence.

DOC-05. Describe existing coverage accurately

The external feature list treats several existing capabilities as wholly absent:

• OSGi config and Cloud Manager variables: migration/references/osgi-cfg-json-cloud-manager.md.

• Repoinit/service users: code-assessment/references/resource-resolver-logging.md.

• wcm.io AemContext tests: create-component/references/test-patterns.md.

• Oak conversion: migration Branch F (beta).

• Core Component extension and template modernization: existing create-component/migration references.

• Add concise routing links where needed rather than promising to build these capabilities again.

• Keep missing coverage such as scheduled publishing and preferred Cloud invalidation guidance distinct from confirmed incorrect instructions.

• Document the current shared create-component runtime support and packaging limitation without forcing users to infer that 6.5 compatibility is broken.

Acceptance criteria

• Every changed local link and repository path resolves.
• Inventory checks account for intended top-level skills and deliberately nested guides, rather than treating every SKILL.md as a separate user-facing entry point.
• Installation claims are evidence-backed and do not imply untested cross-tool behavior.
• Platform facts are coordinated with #494/#495; this issue does not duplicate their technical remediation.
• Do not change runtime behavior, mass-rename skills, or invent an SDK compatibility matrix without verification.

Relevant files

• README.md
• plugins/aem/cloud-service/README.md
• plugins/aem/6.5-lts/README.md
• plugins/aem/cloud-service/.claude-plugin/plugin.json
• plugins/aem/cloud-service/skills/migration/README.md
• plugins/aem/cloud-service/skills/code-assessment/README.md
• Directly dependent AEM installation/inventory README links.

Review mapping

Addresses the documentation portions of I-18/I-20/I-24/I-30 and the existing-versus-missing capability distinction in the feature list. Technical citation corrections remain in #494. This is not authorization to implement the 102 proposed features.