# Ordering

Ordering — most citation-worthy first

**In short:** Organize the file into three or more ## sections (not counting ## Optional), with the content people ask about most first.

- Category: Curation Quality · weight 8 of 100 within the category
- Curation Quality is worth 25 in generic and commerce, 20 in regulated and technical (points of 100, by scoring profile)
- Audit ID C3 (as shown on reports) · rubric v2.1

## What it checks

Whether the most citation-worthy content comes first.

## Why it matters

Agents often read the top of the file and stop, or truncate long files. The first links should be the ones you most want quoted.

## When it applies

Applies when the file has at least one ## section other than ## Optional, or a flat list of links (read as one section). A file with neither is Not applicable here.

An audit that doesn’t apply, or that we couldn’t verify, is removed from your score and its weight shared among the Curation Quality audits that do apply. It is never scored as a zero.

## How it’s scored

From the number of ## sections: 1.0 three or more · 0.7 two · 0.4 one, or a flat list of links with no ## heading. ## Optional isn’t counted.

> **Measurement.** Today section structure stands in for ordering: the order of your links isn’t read. Comparing link order with how citation-worthy each page is (a rank correlation) is planned.

## How to fix

1. Put the sections that answer the most common questions first (product, pricing, getting started).
2. Within each section, order links from most to least important.
3. Push archives, legal and changelog material to the end.

## Frequently asked questions

### How is Ordering scored today?

By structure, as a proxy for order: three or more H2 sections score 1.0, two score 0.7, and one section, or a flat list of links with no H2 at all, scores 0.4. `## Optional` isn’t counted as a section. The rubric’s aim is that link order follows citation-worthiness; until that is measured directly, grouping links into clear topical sections is what earns the score.

Sources: [LLMSRank — Ordering audit](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/audits/ordering.md) · [llmstxt.org — The /llms.txt file, v2](https://llmstxt.org/)

### When is Ordering not applicable to my file?

When there’s nothing to order: a file with no links and no H2 headings, or one whose only H2 is `## Optional`. Like every Not applicable audit, it is then removed from your score and its weight shared among the Curation audits that do apply; it is never scored as zero.

Sources: [LLMSRank — Ordering audit](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/audits/ordering.md) · [LLMSRank — Method](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/method.md)

### What should come first in an llms.txt?

After the H1, the blockquote summary, which the spec says holds “key information necessary for understanding the rest of the file”. Then the sections that answer the most common questions, such as product, pricing and getting started, with the most important links first in each. Secondary material goes last, in an `## Optional` section (“links an agent can skip when a shorter context is needed”) or not at all.

Sources: [llmstxt.org — The /llms.txt file, v2](https://llmstxt.org/) · [LLMSRank — Ordering audit](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/audits/ordering.md)

### Why does the order of links matter if an agent reads the whole file?

Not every agent does. Agents often read the top of a file and stop, or truncate a long one, so the links you most want quoted should come first. Keeping the file within [Token budget](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/audits/token-budget.md) makes truncation less likely; the proposal expects agents to “view or search” the file and then “follow the relevant links”.

Sources: [LLMSRank — Ordering audit](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/audits/ordering.md) · [llmstxt.org — The /llms.txt file, v2](https://llmstxt.org/)

### How do real llms.txt files do on Ordering?

In our research, 184 of the 187 sites in our corpus (captured 2026-10-10, scored with rubric v2.1) had sections to score, and 158 of them (85.9%) earned full marks; the mean was 0.93. netlify.com, aflac.com, taylormorrison.com, expedia.com and tavily.com are examples.

Sources: [LLMSRank — Method](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/method.md) · [LLMSRank — Ordering audit](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/audits/ordering.md)

See also: [all audits](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/audits.md) · [how scoring works](https://llmsrank.dev/docs/method.md)