Arrow Treat it as an optional file for tools that explicitly support it. Google says it does not use llms.txt for Search. A maintained sitemap, crawlable links, appropriate indexing controls and useful visible content should take priority. The existence of this file is not evidence of AI visibility.
Ask which consumer actually uses the file
If a documented tool reads an llms.txt directory, a maintained file can be part of that integration. Record the consumer and the use case. Do not infer that a convention supported by one tool is a requirement for every search engine or assistant.
Maintain the ordinary source first
Useful public pages, current facts, internal navigation and appropriate access rules remain the work a reader can inspect. A text directory that points to stale pages does not correct those pages.
Google says its Search systems do not use llms.txt as a special ranking input. Keep any optional file aligned with real public URLs and evaluate it by its documented consumer rather than reporting file presence as a visibility gain.
What to check
- First maintain useful pages, crawlable internal links, correct indexing controls and a current sitemap.
- If a specific tool consumes llms.txt, document that use case and who maintains the file.
- Keep any published file aligned with real pages and avoid treating file presence as a citation metric.
A practical example
A tool that explicitly reads an llms.txt directory may benefit from a maintained list of documentation links. That use case does not imply that Google Search uses the file or grants it a ranking advantage.
Sources and further reading
These steps are Arrow AI's implementation guidance. The example is illustrative; it is not a measured customer result. Publication and source access do not guarantee an AI recommendation.
Apply this to your website
Identify the source gaps and decide what to improve with Arrow's free audit. Review what Arrow GEO measures before choosing a reporting scope.