llms.txt checker: inspect your file and its public links
An llms.txt checker can help inspect whether a guide file is retrievable, follows the selected format checks, and points to working public information. It cannot prove that an AI assistant reads the file or predict whether your brand will be cited. Read the findings as technical observations with stated limits.
- Required title checked against the v2 proposal
- Sampled public links tested
- Optional suggestions shown separately
Check my llms.txt
How the check works.
Live read
We fetch the public address you enter, follow safe redirects, and record the status and content type. A failed request is reported as unknown.
Format checks
The required H1 title and any sections present are checked against the current llmstxt.org proposal. A sample of listed links is requested.
Technical score
The score covers only the scored technical checks that apply, with their points shown. Optional suggestions are not scored, and the score is not a ranking prediction.
What does the check examine?
The checks cover the public file response, the required site or project title, the structure of any sections that are present, and the status of linked destinations. Each result identifies the check performed and the evidence behind it.
The current llms.txt proposal requires an H1 title. Further context and link sections are optional. This checker distinguishes a format problem from an editorial suggestion, such as adding a clearer summary: suggestions are shown but not scored.
The tool also looks for llms-full.txt and reports it as a separate, unscored check. An expanded companion file is not required on every website.
How should you read the results?
Start with confirmed retrieval problems. A failed response, redirect loop, or unrelated HTML response may require a publishing fix. A fetch error is reported as unknown rather than silently converted into a pass.
Then review structure and links. Check whether the file identifies the right site, whether present sections follow the selected rules, and whether destinations are appropriate and accessible. A working link does not establish that its contents are accurate.
Finally, review editorial suggestions separately. Concision, useful descriptions, and sensible organization can make a guide easier to use, but they should not be sold as mandatory ranking rules.
Common problems and practical fixes
A file served at the wrong route needs a publishing correction. A file that contains the site's normal HTML page needs the correct response content. A missing required title needs a clear site or project name.
Broken links need updated destinations or removal. Stale descriptions need review against current public facts. Optional missing context can be added where it helps, without describing its absence as automatic invalidity.
Do not put credentials, private URLs, customer data, or confidential documentation into a public guide. A checker should assess public information without requiring access to private systems.
What does a pass mean?
A pass means the specific technical checks completed under the tool's declared method. It is not a certification that every statement is true, every client will use the file, or every linked page will be indexed.
Visibility needs a separate assessment. Use actual sampled answers and source links to investigate whether your brand appears for relevant questions. A syntax check and an AI visibility scan answer different questions.
Frequently asked questions
How do I check whether my llms.txt file is valid?+
Inspect the actual file response, the selected format requirements, and any links or sections present. The current proposal requires an H1 title, while other sections are optional. A checker should explain failures and suggestions separately. Technical validity does not establish factual accuracy, adoption by an assistant, or an improved ranking.
What should an llms.txt file contain?+
Use an accurate site or project title and, where useful, concise context and links to supporting public information. Follow the current proposal rather than a stale validation checklist. Keep the file understandable and maintain its destinations. Do not include confidential information or unsupported claims simply because the file is intended for agents.
What is llms-full.txt?+
It is an expanded content convention used in some documentation workflows, often alongside a shorter llms.txt guide. Its presence and format depend on the implementation. A checker should identify what it actually inspected and avoid implying that every website needs the file or that a companion file guarantees use by an AI system.
Does it matter if my site has no llms.txt?+
An absent file means that proposed guide is not available at the checked location. It does not by itself prove that your website is invisible or blocked from AI search. Google says no special AI text file is required for its search features. Prioritize useful accessible content and investigate actual visibility separately.
Can a checker tell whether AI tools read the file?+
Not from a format and retrieval check alone. Server records may show requests, but a request does not prove how a client used the content or whether it affected an answer. The report should distinguish retrieval observations, format checks, and actual answer evidence instead of presenting one as proof of the others.
No file yet?
Generate an llms.txt draft, read what llms.txt means, or check whether AI mentions your brand. For deeper investigation, explore the AEO visibility audit.