+7.5score from 86 to 94
Add descriptions to llms.txt
/llms.txt is a bare link list: 0 of 8 links have a description.
Read prompt
My website hypergsc.com scored 86/100 on Good for Bots (Good). Good for Bots measures one thing: whether a language model can read a site and cite it. I need you to: describe the links in llms.txt and open the file with a summary. The check it fails is "llms.txt is descriptive, not a bare link list", worth 7.5 points. What the scanner saw: /llms.txt is a bare link list: 0 of 8 links have a description. The file is a wall of links with almost nothing said about any of them. Go through it and add a `:` note to each line saying what a reader would get by fetching it: the subject, the shape, and anything that makes it worth choosing over its neighbour. If a link cannot be given a note worth reading, that is usually a sign the link does not belong in the index at all. A file made of `- [Docs](/docs)` and thirty more like it tells a model that this site has pages, which it already knew. What a model needs from an index is the thing that lets it choose: what is behind each address, and whether fetching it is worth the tokens. That is what a note after the link does, and it is the difference between an index and a table of contents nobody asked for. There is nothing normative to cite here, and saying so is the honest opening move. The llms.txt specification makes the note after a link optional and says nothing about how many links should carry one. This is our judgement about what makes such a file worth retrieving, and the report says as much. The file must: - open with a `>` blockquote summary directly under the H1, before the first `##` heading and before the first link line. A summary written lower down is not read as the summary, by this scan or by anything skimming the file top-down; - give each link a `:` followed by a note, on the same line as the link; - describe what is behind the link rather than restating its name. `Pricing: pricing` costs a line and conveys nothing. Before and after, on the same file: ```markdown # Acme ## Docs - [Quickstart](/docs/quickstart.md) - [Concepts](/docs/concepts.md) - [Webhooks](/docs/webhooks.md) ``` ```markdown # Acme > Acme is a hosted billing API for subscription businesses. Everything below is written > against the v2 API; v1 reaches end of life in March. ## Docs - [Quickstart](/docs/quickstart.md): create an account and take a first payment in about ten minutes, with a runnable curl example - [Concepts](/docs/concepts.md): customers, subscriptions, invoices and proration, and how the four objects relate - [Webhooks](/docs/webhooks.md): the event list, signature verification, and the retry schedule ``` The second file is not longer for the sake of it. A model reading it can answer "where do I find the retry schedule" without fetching anything, and then fetch exactly one page. One caution. The summary has to sit above everything else. A blockquote placed after the first heading, or after the first link, reads as a note about that section rather than about the project, and is not counted as the file's summary. Two things about how this is measured, both of which are limits rather than rules. The thresholds are ours and are judgement, not measurement (a quarter of the links carrying a note starts earning credit, three in five passes), so treat them as a floor and write a note wherever a reader would want one. And only the presence of a note is detected, never its quality: `: docs` counts the same as a sentence that says something. Writing `: docs` on every link would clear the check and defeat the purpose of doing it, since the file is for a model and not for us. One last thing about order. A site with no `/llms.txt` at all fails this check too, and that is deliberate: marking it inapplicable would drop it out of the denominator and quietly reward a site for having done nothing. If both this and the llms.txt check are outstanding, do that one first. There is nothing to describe until the file exists. The whole report, as markdown, is at https://goodforbots.com/r/hypergsc.com.md?scan=cmvcbyaku01gj01qzcbsmkz6p. Read it first: this prompt covers one finding, and the report has everything the scan saw. When you are done, summarise what you changed and how to check it against a running instance. Do not try to run the Good for Bots scan yourself: it only sees what is already deployed, it is rate-limited, and re-running it is the site owner's call once the change ships.
