We check /llms.txt on every site our auditor scans, and most files that exist fail on format, not on content. So we put the same checks in a free page: fill in a few fields to generate a file, or paste yours to validate it. It runs in your browser and sends nothing anywhere.

Tool: llms.txt generator and validator (also in Spanish)

The format in one minute

The proposal at llmstxt.org defines the parts in this order. Only the first is required.

  1. An H1 with the site name: # Example Store
  2. A blockquote summary: > Example Store sells handmade ceramics...
  3. Optional paragraphs or lists, no headings
  4. H2 sections, each a list of links: - [name](url): notes

One section can be called ## Optional for links an agent may skip when it needs a shorter context.

The mistakes the validator flags

Code What triggers it Fix
missing-h1 No line starts with # Start the file with # Your site name
h1-not-first Front matter, a comment or text before the H1 Move the H1 to line 1
multiple-h1 More than one H1 Keep one, use ## for sections
missing-summary No > line before the first section Add one right after the H1
heading-in-details An H3 to H6 before the first section Use paragraphs, or make it a ## section
no-link-sections No section holds a link Add a ## section with links
empty-section A section with no links Add links or drop the heading
bad-list-items A bare URL or plain text in a section list Write - [name](url): note

It also warns about relative links: use full URLs so the file still works when a tool reads it on its own.

The failure a validator cannot see

The most common problem is not in the file at all. Many hosts answer unknown paths with the home page, so /llms.txt returns 200 with HTML. Tools then treat the file as absent. Check it with:

curl -i https://yoursite.com/llms.txt

You want status 200 and a Content-Type that is not text/html.

Should you bother?

llms.txt is a proposal, not an IETF or W3C standard, and nothing obliges an AI company to read it. It does not grant or block access either: that is still robots.txt and your CDN. In our October 2026 check of 751 popular sites, about 1 in 10 published a valid one (9.1% in Mexico, 11.3% in the US sample, 8.3% in Canada). It is cheap documentation; fix robots.txt first.

Written with AI and reviewed before publishing. If you spot an error, tell us in the comments.