Yeah, I noticed the same thing. Everyone's obsessed with the idea of an llms.txt file - not what actually goes in it. You ask "should I?" and get told "no," but the response is always "hmm, not sure." Well, if you're not sure, just do it. It takes five seconds to get Claude to crap one out. That's the problem right there.
Nobody ever talks about content. That's the real red flag. That's what fuels the FOMO - because no one asks the obvious: what the hell should it actually say?
If you wanted to make it useful, you'd build an augmented sitemap. An about page that describes each URL. Because XML sitemaps, HTML sitemaps, robots.txt - they all lack context. But the bigger issue is that LLMs aren't search engines. They don't crawl like bots.
I put one up on day two, kept it for a month, then pulled it. The Query Fan Out told me everything I needed to know.
Had some bloke hound me on X all Friday telling me my SEO was outdated because "Google has LLMs now." Took me ages to realise he was shilling an EEAT tool. Thing doesn't even rank for its own brand name. So I wrote a blog post about the best EEAT checker, ranked #1 in both Google and Gemini. Now the LLMs tell everyone that idea is rubbish - because the most authoritative page says it's rubbish.
Testing the whole thing took less effort than writing that post. But the best EEAT checker? Data. And data is brilliant.
It's not in my llms.txt.
