AnswerDotAI / AnswerDotAI/llms-txt

WordPress Plugin Implementation - Seeking Feedback on Standards Compliance

Open
#102 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub
Dominant language
Jupyter Notebook
Stars
2.6k
Forks
163
Avg merge
1m
Merged PRs (30d)
1

Description

## Context

Hello! I'm a WordPress plugin developer who has recently implemented `llms.txt` generation in our [SEO Repair Kit plugin](https://wordpress.org/plugins/seo-repair-kit). I'd like to share our implementation approach and seek feedback from the community on standards compliance and best practices.

## Our Implementation

We've built a comprehensive `llms.txt` generator that:

- Generates markdown-formatted content with section headers (`##`)
- Uses absolute URLs (one per line)
- Includes sitemap references
- Groups content by post type and taxonomy
- Only includes published, publicly accessible content
- Supports custom post types and taxonomies
- Allows manual editing and customization

## Sample Output Format

```
Generated by SEO Repair Kit, this is an llms.txt file designed to help LLMs better understand and index this website.

# Site Name

## Sitemaps
[XML Sitemap](https://example.com/sitemap_index.xml): Includes all crawlable and indexable pages.

## Posts
- [Post Title](https://example.com/post/): Post description

## Pages
- [Page Title](https://example.com/page/): Page description
```

## Questions

1. **Markdown Format**: We're using markdown link format `[Title](URL): Description` - is this the preferred format, or should we use plain URLs?

2. **Section Organization**: We're grouping by post type (Posts, Pages, Products, etc.) and taxonomy (Categories, Tags, etc.). Is this organization's approach aligned with the standard?

3. **Sitemap Inclusion**: Should sitemap references be included in `llms.txt`, or is this redundant since they're already in `robots.txt`?

4. **Content Filtering**: We only include published content for security. Should we also filter by other criteria (e.g., password-protected posts, private posts)?

5. **Descriptions**: We only use existing excerpts/descriptions (no auto-generation). Is this the recommended approach?

## Implementation Details

- **Plugin**: [SEO Repair Kit](https://wordpress.org/plugins/seo-repair-kit) (WordPress.org)
- **Standards Reference**: Following guidelines from llmstxt.org

---

**GitHub Profile**: [@cswaqaas](https://github.com/cswaqaas)
**Location**: TorontoDigits, Pakistan

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

Research direction

Start by reviewing the described SEO Repair Kit implementation and the llmstxt.org guidelines linked in the issue. Compare its Markdown links, section organization, sitemap references, filtering, and descriptions with the standard; done means recording maintainer guidance on which approach is compliant, since no repository file or test is identified.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
wordpress
Domain
documentation
Issue type
Documentation
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.