🧠 We Are Not Schema.org for LLMs — And That’s Good

The Common Misunderstanding

When some developers first see

.llmfeed.json

“Is this like Schema.org for LLMs?”

The answer is:

👉 No — and that’s a feature, not a bug.

Schema.org vs LLMFeed: Philosophies

Why Schema.org Is Not Enough for Agents

Schema.org is great for:

✅ Helping search engines index content
✅ Adding rich snippets to search results
✅ Providing typed metadata for HTML pages

But agents need more:

❌ They don’t want to just know that a page is an

Article

• What is this feed for?
• What actions can I perform?
• What is the trust level of this feed?
• Who certifies it?
• How should I handle fallback?
• What guidance exists for interaction?

LLMFeed: Designed for Agent Context

Instead of:

yaml
type: Article

You get:

json
"intent_router": {
  "default_intent": "learn",
  "fallback": "explain",
  "guided_intents": [
    "generate summary",
    "compare products",
    "answer user questions"
  ]
}

And:

• agent_guidance

  → how to interact

• prompts

  → example prompts to steer the agent

• trust

  → signed blocks

• certifications

  → external verifications
• fallback logic → for error handling and degraded modes

Why This Matters

Agents operate dynamically.

They don’t just "index" pages.
They decide what actions to take, often in real-time conversations with users.

They need:

✅ Context
✅ Trust
✅ Intent
✅ Actionability

This is what

.llmfeed.json

A New Layer for the Agentic Web

LLMFeed is not:

❌ Schema.org for agents
❌ Just another metadata layer
❌ A replacement for SEO (though it helps agent visibility)

LLMFeed is:

✅ A trust and intent layer
✅ For LLM-based agents
✅ For the Agentic Web
✅ For actions, not just descriptions

Final Thought

The web of the future is agent-mediated.

Agents need more than metadata.
They need context — and the ability to reason about what they can do, and what can be trusted.

👉 That’s why we are not Schema.org — and that’s good.