@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/wechat-expense-tracking-mini-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 931,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Generate basic code for a WeChat expense tracking mini-program, including a bill recording page and category selection functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the bill recording functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete bill recording system with amount input, date selection, category selection, and note/remarks field. Evaluate whether form validation is properly implemented (e.g., non-empty amount, valid date format). Score 0 if core recording functionality is missing, 5 if basic input is implemented but lacks validation, and 10 if all recording features are properly implemented with appropriate validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the category selection feature properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the category system includes both income and expense categories with appropriate subcategories (at least 5 expense categories and 3 income categories). Check if the UI provides visual indicators for different categories (icons) and allows for easy selection. Deduct 3 points if categories are hardcoded without customization options, 5 points if the category selection UI is cumbersome, and 3 points if category icons/visual indicators are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is local data persistence implemented for bills?",
+      "description": "Check if the mini-program properly utilizes WeChat's storage APIs (wx.setStorage/wx.getStorage) or cloud database to save and retrieve bill data. Evaluate whether the code handles storage exceptions and implements data backup. Deduct 5 points if bills aren't persisted between app restarts, 3 points if there's no error handling for storage operations, and 3 points if there's no data migration strategy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the mini-program implement basic bill statistics/visualization?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes basic statistical features such as daily/monthly/yearly expense summaries, category-based spending breakdowns, or simple charts (pie charts, bar graphs). Deduct 5 points if no statistics are implemented, 3 points if only text-based summaries exist without visualizations, and 2 points if the statistics lack filtering options. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, network interruption when syncing, storage limits, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Voice input for quick expense recording 2. OCR receipt scanning 3. Budget alerts/notifications 4. Expense sharing with contacts). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to add the same type of expense) 2. Function modules unrelated to expense tracking (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the UI). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/data layers), consistent naming conventions, and reusable components. Deduct 5 points if global state is poorly managed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no component isolation between pages. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows WeChat mini-program design principles: 1) Consistent with WeChat's visual language (font, spacing, colors) 2) Clean and minimal UI with appropriate whitespace 3) Proper use of WeChat UI components rather than custom implementations. Deduct 3 points for each UI element that doesn't match WeChat's style guidelines, 5 points for cluttered screens with poor information hierarchy, and 5 points for non-standard input controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the page transitions and interactions follow WeChat mini-program conventions: 1) Quick response to taps (≤ 100ms) 2) Smooth transitions between pages 3) Appropriate loading indicators for async operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jittery animations or transitions, and 5 points for non-intuitive navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/wechat-mini-program-furniture-configurator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 418,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. I am refining my master's thesis, which mainly focuses on: exploring user needs through multiple dimensions and designing responses accordingly. The primary method involves analyzing user interview records and online review data using text data analysis to understand users' basic requirements for customized furniture, and on this basis, conducting research on both structural and aesthetic aspects of customized furniture configuration design. For the structural module configuration of customized furniture, association rule mining algorithms are used to deeply extract component association rules from the company's historical sales records, thereby building a rule base for customized furniture component configuration and forming customized furniture configuration modules categorized by functionality. For the aesthetic configuration design of customized furniture, eye-tracking experiments are conducted to study users' intuitive search mechanisms when observing customized furniture in both single-element stimuli and composite scene stimuli, and to classify users according to their subjective style preferences and objective visual preferences. Finally, combining the results of structural and aesthetic configuration design research, a recommendation system for customized furniture configuration design is built based on a rule engine. Currently, I have reached the system-building stage and plan to present it as a WeChat Mini Program. I have already registered with APPAid. As I have no coding background, I need specific and detailed implementation guidance from the beginning. My current plan for the Mini Program consists of eight steps: 1. User selects the required cabinet function, including wardrobe, entrance cabinet, sideboard, bookcase, storage cabinet, and display cabinet. 2. User selects the number of cabinet units needed: 1, 2, 3, or 4 units. 3. User selects the structural form for each unit, which are pre-established 3D models. 4. Multiple units are combined to display the result. 5. User selects preferred styles, with options including natural, bright, minimalist, vintage, warm, comfortable, and modern, and can select two. 6. Based on the selected styles, recommend colors or textures for the cabinet and map them to the 3D model. 7. Display the result with 3D rotation interaction capability. 8. If unsatisfied, allow further customization of colors and textures.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the cabinet function selection module fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the cabinet function selection system (wardrobe, entrance cabinet, sideboard, bookcase, storage cabinet, and display cabinet) with clear visual differentiation and proper descriptions. Check if the selection mechanism includes proper state management and validation.Score 0 if the cabinet function selection is not implemented, 5 if only basic selection without descriptions or visual previews is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive selection with visual previews, descriptions, and smooth transitions is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the unit number and structural form selection fully functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements the unit number selection (1-4 units) and structural form selection for each unit with appropriate validation. Check if pre-established 3D models are properly loaded and displayed for different structural forms, and whether the selection interface is intuitive.Score 0 if the unit selection is missing, 5 if basic selection is implemented but lacks visual feedback or has rendering issues, and 10 if the selection process is smooth with proper validation, visual feedback, and efficient 3D model loading.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the multi-unit combination display system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements the combination of multiple unit selections into a cohesive display. Verify that the 3D models are properly aligned, scaled, and rendered together, and that the combined view maintains proper perspective and lighting consistency.Score 0 if multi-unit combination is not implemented, 5 if basic combination is implemented but with alignment/scaling issues or rendering artifacts, and 10 if seamless combination with proper alignment, consistent lighting, and optimized rendering is achieved.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the style selection and texture mapping system functional?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements the style selection system (natural, bright, minimalist, vintage, warm, comfortable, modern) with proper multi-selection capability (2 styles max). Check if the recommendation engine correctly maps selected styles to appropriate colors/textures and applies them to the 3D models with proper material rendering.Score 0 if style selection and texture mapping are not implemented, 5 if basic selection exists but recommendation or texture mapping is flawed, and 10 if comprehensive style selection with accurate recommendations and high-quality texture mapping is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions during 3D model loading, invalid user selections, WebGL context loss, device compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms.Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AR room preview of the furniture 2. User-friendly measurement guidance 3. Social sharing capabilities with personalized configurations 4. Cost estimation based on selected components).Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple style selection methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to furniture customization (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary particle effects).Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating 3D rendering/business logic/UI layers), asset loading optimization, and WeChat Mini Program best practices adherence. Examine 3D model optimization techniques and rendering performance.Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 4 points if 3D assets are not optimized for mobile rendering. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching aligned with furniture design aesthetics 2) Proper layout spacing following WeChat Mini Program design guidelines 3) Professional font system suitable for furniture customization context.Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the 3D interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the 3D model rotation and customization interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Rotation gestures respond within 50ms 2) Texture/color changes render within 200ms 3) Clear visual feedback during all interactions 4) Proper optimization for mobile devices.Deduct 3 points for each interaction without proper feedback, 5 points for noticeable frame rate drops during interaction, and 5 points for unintuitive 3D manipulation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/wechat-mini-program-library-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1329,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Create a WeChat Mini Program that functions as a library management system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core library management functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements essential library functions including book cataloging, user management, borrowing/returning processes, and search functionality. Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic operations are implemented, and 10 if the system includes advanced features like reservation, fine calculation, and due date notifications.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Mini Program architecture properly structured for WeChat environment?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code follows WeChat Mini Program architecture conventions with appropriate page structure (WXML, WXSS, JS, JSON files), correct App and Page lifecycle management, and proper use of WeChat APIs. Deduct 5 points if the project structure doesn't follow WeChat standards, 3 points if lifecycle events are improperly handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the data persistence and synchronization mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code utilizes appropriate storage methods (cloud database, local storage, caching) for different data requirements. Verify if data synchronization between local and cloud is correctly implemented with conflict resolution strategies. Deduct 5 points if offline capability is missing, 3 points if data validation is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the WeChat user authentication and authorization properly integrated?",
+      "description": "Assess implementation of WeChat login, OpenID usage, and proper permission handling for user information access. Check if the application handles different user roles (admin, librarian, regular user) correctly. Deduct 5 points for insecure authentication, 3 points for missing role-based access control. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, invalid input, missing book information, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Book recommendation based on borrowing history 2. Barcode/QR code scanning for quick checkout 3. Social sharing of reading lists). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple user profile systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to library management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the interface). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/service/UI layers), component reusability, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state is poorly managed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if naming conventions are inconsistent or unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows WeChat design language and principles: 1) Consistent with WeChat UI components and style 2) Proper layout spacing and information hierarchy 3) Professional typography with appropriate font sizes. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent UI elements, 5 points for cluttered information layout, and 5 points for poor readability. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to WeChat Mini Program standards and user expectations: 1) Responsive touch feedback 2) Smooth page transitions and loading states 3) Clear visual indicators for system status. Deduct 5 points for laggy interactions, 3 points for missing loading indicators during data fetching, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/wechat-mini-program-property-management-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 920,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please provide code for the frontend page design of a property management system based on WeChat Mini Program.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Mini Program structure complete with necessary configuration files?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes the essential WeChat Mini Program configuration files (app.json, app.wxss, app.js, project.config.json) with proper global settings. Check if page registration is correctly implemented in app.json with appropriate window configuration. Deduct 5 points if global configuration is missing, 3 points for incomplete page registration. Score 10 points if all configurations are properly implemented with optimization for property management scenarios.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the core property management features implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code implements essential property management features: property listing/details, payment management, maintenance requests, announcements, and user profile management. Score 0 if core features are missing, 5 points if only basic features exist, and 10 points if all essential features with proper CRUD operations are implemented. Check for proper API integration points even if backend implementations are not included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the WeChat Mini Program component utilization appropriate?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code effectively utilizes built-in WeChat components (wx-swiper, wx-tab, wx-form, etc.) instead of reinventing with custom implementations. Validate proper usage of component lifecycle hooks and data binding. Deduct 3 points for each major feature implemented without appropriate WeChat components, and 5 points if custom implementations negatively impact performance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the WeChat authorization and user login flow correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code includes proper WeChat authorization flow using wx.login(), handles session management, and implements secure storage of user credentials. Check for proper error handling during login failures and session expiration. Deduct 5 points if authorization is missing, 3 points if error handling is incomplete. Give 10 points if the implementation follows WeChat's best practices including silent login and refreshing mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, API errors, invalid input data, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. OCR-based meter reading submission 2. AI-based maintenance issue identification 3. WeChat payment integration with automatic receipt generation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple notification systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to property management (e.g., built-in games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations on property listings). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components, logic, and API services), component reusability, and appropriate file organization following WeChat Mini Program conventions. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if custom components lack proper encapsulation and documentation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows WeChat Mini Program design principles: 1) Consistent with WeChat's visual language and component styles 2) Proper layout spacing and responsive design for different device sizes 3) Professional typography system consistent with WeChat standards. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent visual element, 5 points for non-standard component styling, and 5 points for layouts that break on different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to WeChat Mini Program performance standards: 1) Page transitions complete within 300ms 2) List rendering optimized with recycleView for property listings 3) Lazy loading for image-heavy pages. Deduct 5 points for janky scrolling, 3 points for unoptimized list rendering causing frame drops, and 5 points for blocking operations in the UI thread. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/wechat-mini-program-warehouse-inventory-financial-management.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1724,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Help me create a WeChat Mini Program for warehouse inventory management. The main functions include: initial data setup, creating orders for incoming and outgoing inventory, inventory registration, and inventory queries. Sorry, also need financial management.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic warehouse inventory management system implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code correctly implements the core Mini Program structure with App.json, App.wxss, and essential pages. Check whether the inventory database schema properly includes essential fields like product ID, name, quantity, location, unit price, and timestamps. Review if the system handles multiple warehouses and inventory categorization. Score 0 if core structures are missing, 5 if basic inventory tracking is implemented, and 10 if complete warehouse management functionality is included with proper data relationships.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the incoming and outgoing inventory order operations fully functional?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements complete order workflows for both receiving and shipping inventory. Verify that the system captures essential order details (order number, date, supplier/customer, products with quantities, prices) and properly updates inventory quantities. Validate that the system handles partial orders, returns, and maintains order history. Deduct 5 points if transaction logs are not implemented, and 3 points if order verification workflows are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the inventory registration and query system effective?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code provides proper inventory registration functionality with barcode/QR code scanning capabilities, batch operations, and validation checks. Check if the query system offers flexible search by multiple parameters (product name, code, category, warehouse location) with sorting and filtering options. Verify that inventory alerts for low stock and expiration dates are implemented. Deduct 5 points if mobile-optimized scanning is missing, and 3 points if advanced search capabilities are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the financial management module properly integrated with inventory operations?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements financial tracking that links directly to inventory transactions, including cost calculations (FIFO/LIFO/average), profit margins, invoice generation, and payment tracking. Check if the system generates financial reports (profit/loss, inventory valuation) with visualization components. Deduct 5 points if cost basis tracking is inconsistent, and 3 points if financial reporting lacks visualization. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases in Mini Program environments (such as offline usage, network instability, concurrent modifications, etc.) and provides appropriate error handling and data validation. Check for input sanitization, transaction rollbacks on failure, and data consistency mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered inventory prediction 2. Voice command inventory operations 3. Augmented reality for warehouse navigation 4. Automated supplier reordering). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to register inventory) 2. Function modules unrelated to warehouse management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance on low-end devices common for warehouse staff. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating business logic/UI/API layers), use of WeChat Mini Program best practices (proper use of components, API calls), error logging, and comprehensive comments. Deduct 5 points if global state management is poorly implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if unit tests are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows WeChat Mini Program design guidelines: 1) Consistent with WeChat visual language 2) Proper use of WeChat components 3) Responsive layout that works on various screen sizes 4) Appropriate use of white space and typography. Deduct 3 points for each non-standard component implementation, 5 points for inconsistent navigation patterns, and 5 points for poor readability of critical inventory data. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and optimized for warehouse scenarios?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the app is optimized for real warehouse usage: 1) Fast barcode scanning response (≤ 500ms) 2) Single-handed operation possible for key functions 3) Minimal steps for frequent tasks 4) Works in poor connectivity conditions. Deduct 5 points if scanning operations take too many steps, 3 points for non-intuitive inventory adjustment gestures, and 5 points if offline capability is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/winform-treeview-department-structure.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 316,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that the code you generate is executable and displayable. Create a department structure using a WinForm TreeView for me.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the TreeView implementation complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly initializes a TreeView control, adds nodes representing department hierarchy, and implements basic functionality. Check if the nodes are properly structured (parent-child relationships), named, and if icons are used to distinguish different node types. Score 0 if TreeView is not implemented, 5 if basic implementation exists, 10 if fully featured with proper structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is department data management properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes proper data structures for departments (classes/objects), methods for adding/removing/editing departments, and maintains the hierarchical relationships correctly. Deduct 5 points if only hard-coded department structure exists, 3 points if modification operations are incomplete. Full score requires a complete data model with CRUD operations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are event handlers for TreeView interactions implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code handles user interactions such as node expansion/collapse, selection change, right-click context menus, and drag-and-drop operations if needed. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction handler. The implementation should include proper event wiring and handlers that perform appropriate actions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is node manipulation functionality included?",
+      "description": "Assess whether users can add new departments, delete existing ones, rename departments, and move departments (restructuring). Check for keyboard shortcuts support, confirmation dialogs for destructive actions, and proper UI feedback. Give 10 points for complete implementation, 5 for partial functionality, 0 if completely missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty department names, duplicate nodes, invalid operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Search functionality for departments 2. Export/import of department structure 3. Visual indicators of department size/employee count). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to add departments) 2. Function modules unrelated to department management (e.g., built-in calculators) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI logic from business logic), proper naming conventions, commenting, error handling, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if the code is not properly organized into methods/classes; deduct 5 points if naming conventions are inconsistent or unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern Windows Forms design principles: 1) Consistent control spacing and alignment 2) Proper form sizing and resizing behavior 3) Professional use of fonts, colors and icons. Deduct 3 points for each misaligned element, 5 points for non-resizable interface with truncated content, and 5 points for unclear visual hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interaction design conforms to Windows application standards: 1) Standard keyboard shortcuts (Del for delete, F2 for rename, etc.) 2) Intuitive drag-and-drop behavior 3) Appropriate visual feedback for actions. Deduct 5 points for missing standard shortcuts, 3 points for unintuitive interaction patterns, and 5 points for lack of visual feedback during operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/yinmeng-self-service-printing-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 753,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Write a program similar to Yinmeng self-service printing.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core printing system functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements the essential features of a self-service printing system, including file upload/selection, printer selection, print configuration (copies, color/B&W, page range, etc.), and print job submission. Award 10 points for complete implementation with all core features, 5 points if basic printing is possible but missing key configurations, and 0 points if the printing workflow is incomplete or non-functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the file management and preview system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes file upload capabilities supporting multiple formats (PDF, DOC, images), secure file storage, and proper preview functionality (document thumbnails or rendering). Verify if the preview accurately represents how the document will print. Deduct 3 points if multiple file formats aren't supported, 4 points for missing preview functionality, and 5 points if file management is insecure. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is a payment/balance system implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes a complete user balance/payment workflow with price calculation based on parameters (page count, color vs. B&W), payment options, and proper receipt generation. Check if the system includes proper transaction logs and balance management. Award 10 points for a complete system with all features, 5 points if basic payment exists but lacks some elements, and 0 points if payment functionality is absent.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a comprehensive user account and authentication system?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code implements user registration, login, session management, account dashboard (printing history, saved documents, etc.), and proper security measures (password hashing, input validation). Award 10 points for a complete system with secure practices, 5 points if basic authentication exists with security gaps, and 0 points if authentication is missing or fundamentally flawed.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (invalid file formats, payment failures, network interruptions, printer errors) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. OCR for text extraction and editing 2. Document AI for automatic formatting improvement 3. Smart queue management with estimated wait times). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload methods with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to printing (e.g., a built-in game while waiting) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during critical operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating business logic/UI/data layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/backup-strategy-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 560,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the code executable whenever possible. Please write code to implement a backup strategy management system where IT administrators can create and manage different backup policies, and users can automatically upload backups of specified folders according to these policies. The system should provide status monitoring and logging functions for backup tasks, and support data recovery. Administrators should be able to assign backup policies to different users and generate backup usage reports.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the backup policy management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete policy management system where administrators can create, edit, delete, and view backup policies with parameters like frequency, retention period, and storage targets. Check if policies can be assigned to specific users or groups. Score 0 if the policy management functionality is missing, 5 if basic CRUD operations are implemented but lack advanced features, and 10 if the system includes comprehensive policy management with validation and conflict detection.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the automated backup mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the automated backup functionality. Check if the code includes scheduling mechanisms (cron jobs, task schedulers), file monitoring for changes, incremental/differential backup options, and compression algorithms. Verify that backups can be triggered automatically according to defined policies. Deduct 3 points if scheduling is manual only, 3 points if only full backups are supported, and 3 points if there's no compression or encryption. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the monitoring and logging system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements detailed logging and monitoring for backup operations, including success/failure status, progress tracking, error handling, and notification mechanisms. Check for real-time monitoring dashboards, alert configurations, and audit trails. Deduct 3 points if there's no real-time status updates, 3 points if error notifications are missing, and 3 points if historical logs cannot be queried or filtered. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data recovery functionality effective?",
+      "description": "Examine the data recovery implementation, including point-in-time recovery options, file-level and system-level restore capabilities, and restoration testing mechanisms. Check if the recovery process handles corrupted backups and provides clear progress indicators. Deduct 3 points if only full restores are supported (no granular recovery), 3 points if versioning is limited/missing, and 3 points if there's no verification of restored data. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, disk full events, permission issues, corrupted files, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if background processes can resume interrupted backups. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered backup optimization suggestions 2. Cloud storage integration with automatic provider selection 3. Self-healing backup verification). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple backup engines running in parallel) 2. Function modules unrelated to backup management (e.g., a built-in email client) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the dashboard). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating policy management/backup execution/reporting layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for appropriate design patterns, error handling, and dependency management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Check if dashboard visualizations are clear and informative. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic dashboard layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Progress indicators for long-running operations 3) Clear visual guidance for critical actions like recovery processes. Assess responsiveness during large backup operations. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for freezing UIs during backup processes, and 5 points for confusing navigation between system components. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}