llms-txt

Use when auditing public documentation portals, API references, help centers, SDK docs, or large knowledge bases. Check the final file served at `/llms.txt` and verify that the linked pages are stable, high-value, and accessible without relying on a JavaScript-only interface.

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/llms-txt/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured, lean overview with strong progressive disclosure via a real one-level reference, but it loses points for redundant restatements across sections, a missing inline llms.txt format example, and the absence of a post-fix verification feedback loop.

Suggestions

Reduce redundancy across Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review, which repeat the same core advice (root path, curate stable links, llms-full.txt optional, robots.txt for crawl); consolidate the shared guidance once and let each section add only its distinct angle.

Add a minimal inline example of the llms.txt file format (the project description line plus a few curated links) so the deliverable is concrete without forcing a trip to references/rule.md.

Add a feedback loop after the Fix step — re-verify the file serves at root and linked URLs return HTTP 200 before considering the publish complete — to gate the workflow with an explicit checkpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly tight and sectioned, but the Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review sections repeatedly restate the same core advice (serve at root, curate stable links, llms-full.txt optional, robots.txt for crawl) and the opening motivation paragraph adds padding, so it could be tightened rather than earning the score-3 'every token earns its place' bar.	2 / 3
Actionability	Direction is concrete (serve at /llms.txt, 'Confirm that linked URLs return HTTP 200', add a short description plus curated URL list), but the actual deliverable — an example of the llms.txt file format/structure — is deferred to references/rule.md, leaving key inline details incomplete rather than copy-paste ready.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Phases are clearly labeled (Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) and Check includes an explicit 'linked URLs return HTTP 200' verification, but there is no feedback loop re-verifying after the Fix step and the sequence between phases is implicit rather than a gated, checkpoint-driven workflow, so it sits at the score-2 anchor.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	A ~45-line overview organized into clear sections with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') to a real, verified bundle file — content appropriately split with easy navigation, matching the score-3 anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, specific description with an explicit 'Use when' trigger, concrete audit actions, natural domain vocabulary, and a distinct niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'auditing public documentation portals, API references, help centers, SDK docs', 'Check the final file served at /llms.txt', and 'verify that the linked pages are stable, high-value, and accessible' — which matches the score-3 anchor of multiple specific concrete actions.	3 / 3
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (check the served /llms.txt, verify linked pages are stable/high-value/accessible) and 'when' via an explicit 'Use when auditing...' trigger, matching the score-3 anchor; the missing-trigger cap-at-2 rule does not apply.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural, user-sayable terms are well covered — 'documentation portals', 'API references', 'help centers', 'SDK docs', 'large knowledge bases', and 'llms.txt' — introduced by an explicit 'Use when' trigger, satisfying the score-3 anchor of good natural-term coverage.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a distinct niche — auditing/publishing the llms.txt convention for documentation-heavy sites — with triggers unlikely to overlap unrelated skills, matching the score-3 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist
Path: skills/llms-txt/SKILL.md
Commit: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 10 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.