@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/device-lifecycle-management-system-fine-chemical.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 210,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the generated code is executable and displayable. You are a master of device management. Can you help me build a device lifecycle management system for fine chemical enterprises, aimed at equipment management personnel, the three engineers (mechanical, electrical, and instrument engineers), and equipment users? It's for daily equipment work management, for designated personnel use. Please help me design it with a navy blue and white color scheme as the main color palette. Output in HTML format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the device lifecycle management core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements comprehensive device lifecycle stages through HTML/JavaScript, including device registration, maintenance scheduling, status monitoring, retirement planning, and asset tracking. Check if it covers all phases from procurement to disposal with proper state transitions. Score 0 if core lifecycle logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic CRUD operations are present, and 10 if complete lifecycle management with automated workflows is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the multi-role user management system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes role-based access control for equipment management personnel, mechanical/electrical/instrument engineers, and equipment users. Check for proper permission segregation, role-specific dashboards, and secure authentication mechanisms. Verify that each role has appropriate access levels and functionality tailored to their responsibilities. Deduct 5 points if role separation is unclear, 3 points if permission validation is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the equipment work management and scheduling system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements daily work management features including maintenance schedules, work order creation/assignment, equipment downtime tracking, and performance analytics. Evaluate if preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, and emergency response workflows are properly designed. Deduct 5 points if scheduling algorithms are basic, 3 points if notification systems are missing. Full score requires advanced scheduling with conflict resolution.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the fine chemical industry compliance and safety framework integrated?",
+      "description": "Review whether the system addresses fine chemical industry-specific requirements such as hazardous equipment classification, safety protocol enforcement, regulatory compliance tracking, and incident reporting mechanisms. Check for integration of safety checklists, permit-to-work systems, and environmental monitoring. Deduct 5 points if industry-specific features are generic, 3 points if safety protocols are not enforced. 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 device data input, network interruption, concurrent user operations, data corruption, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases including database failures, API timeouts, and user permission changes. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance enterprise workflow?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes valuable features that improve operational efficiency (e.g., 1. Predictive maintenance using equipment sensor data 2. Mobile-responsive interface for field technicians 3. Integration with ERP/CMMS systems 4. AI-powered equipment failure prediction 5. QR code-based equipment identification). Add 2-3 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 equipment search mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to device management (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive animations that impact enterprise software performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core device management functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have enterprise-grade engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separating data layer/business logic/presentation layers), security implementation, database design normalization, and scalability considerations. Deduct 5 points if sensitive data is not properly secured or SQL injection vulnerabilities exist; deduct 5 points if the code structure doesn't support enterprise scalability; deduct 5 points if no data backup/recovery mechanisms are implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the navy blue and white interface design meet professional enterprise standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the navy blue and white color scheme is professionally implemented following enterprise design principles: 1) Proper navy blue variants used consistently (#1e3a5f, #2c5282, etc.) 2) High contrast ratios for accessibility (minimum 4.5:1) 3) Professional typography with clear hierarchy 4) Clean white space utilization. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent color usage, 5 points for poor contrast affecting readability, and 5 points for unprofessional appearance unsuitable for industrial environments.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the enterprise user experience optimized for daily operations?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interface is optimized for daily enterprise use: 1) Quick access to frequently used functions 2) Efficient data entry forms with validation 3) Clear navigation suitable for different user roles 4) Responsive design for various devices used in industrial settings. Deduct 5 points for each workflow that requires excessive clicks, 3 points for forms lacking proper validation, and 5 points for navigation that doesn't clearly separate role-based functions. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/equipment-borrowing-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 647,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Equipment Borrowing Management System\n\nYou are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration.\n\nDevelop an electronic device borrowing management system for company employees to borrow shared equipment such as laptops, projectors, cameras, etc. The system requires user login functionality where regular employees can view available equipment lists, submit borrowing requests (specifying time period and purpose), and return equipment. Administrators (username: admin, password: 123456) can approve borrowing requests, add or remove equipment, view borrowing history, and mark equipment status (available, borrowed, under maintenance). The system should automatically send reminders about equipment return dates and track usage rates and borrowing frequency for each type of equipment.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements secure user authentication with role-based access control (regular employees vs. administrators). Check if login validation includes input sanitation, password hashing, and session management. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic login exists without security features, and 10 if it includes proper authentication with role separation and security measures.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the equipment management functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of equipment management features, including listing, adding, removing, and updating equipment status (available, borrowed, under maintenance). Check if each equipment item has proper attributes (ID, name, type, status, description, etc.). Deduct 3 points if equipment categorization is missing, 5 points if equipment status tracking is incomplete, and 3 points if equipment details are insufficient. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the borrowing request system fully functional?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the code implements a complete borrowing workflow including request submission (with time period and purpose), approval process, and return handling. Check if the system validates borrowing dates, prevents conflicts, and handles edge cases like early returns or extensions. Score 0 if the core borrowing process is incomplete, 5 if basic functionality exists without validation, and 10 if the complete workflow with all validations is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the notification and reminder system implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes automated reminders for return dates. Check if notifications are properly scheduled and delivered through appropriate channels (in-app, email, etc.). Verify if the system handles overdue items with escalation procedures. Deduct 5 points if reminders are missing, 3 points if notification delivery is unreliable, and 3 points if overdue handling is absent. 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 concurrent borrowing requests for the same equipment, network issues during submission, user operation errors, 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. Equipment usage analytics/visualizations 2. QR code generation for quick equipment check-in/check-out 3. Integration with calendar for scheduling). 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 update equipment status) 2. Function modules unrelated to equipment management (e.g., a complex chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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/presentation 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-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/esp32-car-control-webpage-ultrasonic-line-tracking.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1321,
+  "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. Please help me write code for a webpage that controls an ESP32 car with ultrasonic sensors and line tracking sensors. The car uses a DRV8833 motor driver chip.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the ESP32 web control interface fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a responsive web interface with directional controls (forward, backward, left, right), speed adjustment, and emergency stop functionality. Check if WebSocket/HTTP communication is correctly established for real-time control. Score 0 if basic controls are missing, 5 if only basic movement controls are implemented, and 10 if all controls including speed adjustment and emergency stop are properly implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the ultrasonic sensor data visualization properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code effectively displays real-time ultrasonic sensor data through visual indicators (gauges, numerical displays, or radar-like visualizations). Check if distance thresholds for obstacle detection are properly configured and if warning indicators are shown when obstacles are detected. Deduct 3 points if visualization is missing, 3 points if data is not updated in real-time, and 2 points if warning indicators are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the line tracking sensor feedback and control system implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the webpage displays the status of line tracking sensors and provides an automatic line-following mode option. Verify if the interface shows the current tracking status and allows toggling between manual and line-following modes. Deduct 5 points if sensor feedback visualization is missing, and 5 points if the automatic line-following control feature is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the DRV8833 motor driver control logic correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly translates web interface commands to appropriate PWM signal instructions for the DRV8833 motor driver chip. Check for proper mapping of directional controls to motor outputs, speed control implementation, and motor protection features (overcurrent detection). Deduct 5 points if PWM control is improperly implemented, 3 points if motor protection features are missing, and 2 points if speed control is inaccurate. 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 connection loss, sensor failure, invalid input values, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should implement timeout handling, reconnection mechanisms, and sensor error detection. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
+      "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. Real-time path mapping/tracking visualization 2. Camera integration for remote viewing 3. Customizable autonomous navigation patterns 4. Battery level monitoring and alerts). 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 control systems overlapping) 2. Function modules unrelated to car control (e.g., unnecessary animations or features) 3. Heavy frontend effects that could impact performance on mobile devices or cause latency in control. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core control functions are compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/control logic/communication layers), error logging, and responsive design implementation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if proper design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the interface is not responsive across different devices. 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 control layout with clear visual hierarchy (primary controls prominently displayed). Deduct 3 points for each poorly positioned control element, 5 points for an unclear or visually jarring interface, and 5 points for controls that are difficult to use on touch devices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the control interface provides immediate feedback and responsiveness: 1) Command execution delay ≤ 100ms 2) Visual feedback for all user actions 3) Real-time sensor data updates at least every 200ms. Deduct 5 points for noticeable control latency, 3 points for missing visual feedback on controls, and 5 points for sensor data that updates too slowly or inconsistently. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/hardware-inventory-warning-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 607,
+  "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. Develop a hardware inventory warning system that automatically sends alerts when inventory quantities fall below a set threshold; users can view the alert list and handle alerts (such as restocking).",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the inventory monitoring and threshold detection system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements real-time inventory quantity tracking, automatic threshold comparison logic, and multi-level warning mechanisms (critical/warning/info levels). Check if the system supports configurable thresholds for different item categories and includes bulk threshold management. Score 0 if core monitoring logic is missing, 5 if only basic threshold detection is implemented, and 10 if advanced features like predictive analytics and seasonal threshold adjustments are included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the alert notification system comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the notification system supports multiple channels (email, SMS, in-app notifications, webhook integrations) with proper message queuing and retry mechanisms. Check for alert escalation logic, notification batching to prevent spam, and customizable notification templates. Deduct 5 points if delivery confirmation is missing, 3 points if no rate limiting is implemented. Full score requires multi-channel failover and delivery tracking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the alert management and handling workflow properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system provides comprehensive alert lifecycle management including alert acknowledgment, assignment to responsible personnel, status tracking (pending/in-progress/resolved), and audit trails. Evaluate if bulk alert operations, filtering/sorting capabilities, and automated alert resolution are implemented. Deduct 5 points if no workflow automation exists, 3 points if alert history is not maintained. Full score requires advanced workflow customization and SLA tracking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the inventory data management and restocking integration complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes robust inventory data CRUD operations, supplier integration for automated reordering, purchase order generation, and inventory forecasting capabilities. Check for data validation, concurrent update handling, and integration with external inventory systems via APIs. Deduct 5 points if no automated restocking workflow exists, 3 points if data consistency mechanisms are missing. Full score requires comprehensive supply chain integration and predictive restocking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust and error-resilient?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases such as negative inventory values, concurrent threshold updates, network failures during alert sending, and database connection issues. Check for proper exception handling, graceful degradation, circuit breaker patterns, and comprehensive logging. Code with strong robustness should include retry mechanisms, fallback strategies, and data recovery procedures, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exception handling exists, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance operational efficiency?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes advanced features that improve user experience and operational efficiency (e.g., 1. AI-powered demand forecasting 2. Mobile-responsive dashboard with offline capability 3. Integration with barcode/RFID scanning 4. Automated vendor comparison and procurement suggestions 5. Real-time inventory analytics and reporting). Add 2-3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary features?",
+      "description": "Strictly examine three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate alert mechanisms or notification logic 2. Features unrelated to inventory management (e.g., built-in chat system, games) 3. Over-engineered UI components that don't add functional value (e.g., excessive animations, complex charts for simple data). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core inventory functions are compromised by unnecessary complexity.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code demonstrate professional engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review architectural patterns (separation of concerns, service layers, repository patterns), test coverage for critical paths, database optimization, and deployment automation. Deduct 5 points if tight coupling between components is found; deduct 5 points if no unit tests exist for core inventory logic; deduct 5 points if database queries are not optimized or lack proper indexing. Full score requires clean architecture, comprehensive testing, and production-ready deployment configuration.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the user interface meet professional dashboard design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the dashboard design follows enterprise application principles: 1) Consistent color scheme with proper contrast ratios for accessibility 2) Logical information hierarchy with clear visual grouping 3) Professional typography with appropriate font sizes (≥14px for body text) 4) Effective use of data visualization for inventory trends. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for poor color choices affecting readability, and 5 points for inconsistent styling across pages.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interface provides optimal user experience: 1) Immediate feedback for all user actions (≤100ms) 2) Smooth transitions between different views (300-500ms) 3) Clear visual indicators for alert priorities and system status 4) Intuitive navigation and search functionality. Deduct 5 points for any action lacking visual feedback, 3 points for confusing navigation flow, and 5 points if critical functions like alert acknowledgment are hard to locate or execute.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/hardware-repair-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 554,
+  "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 whenever possible. Develop a hardware repair management system where employees can submit hardware repair requests through a frontend interface, filling in hardware name, fault description, and application time. The system should display the status of all repair requests (pending, in progress, completed). Administrators (username: repairadmin, password: repair999) can assign repair personnel and update repair status.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic hardware repair request submission functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete submission form with fields for hardware name, fault description, and application time. The form should include input validation (required fields, character limits, date format validation). Score 0 if the core submission functionality is missing, 5 if basic form is implemented without validation, and 10 if the form is complete with comprehensive validation and user feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the repair request status display system implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the application properly displays all repair requests with their statuses (pending, in progress, completed). Evaluate whether the status display includes visual indicators (color coding, icons), sorting/filtering capabilities, and real-time or periodic updates. Deduct 3 points if status transitions aren't visually clear, 4 points if filtering/sorting is absent, and 3 points if the display isn't responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the administrator authentication system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the system implements secure login for administrators with the specified credentials (username: repairadmin, password: repair999). Check for proper authentication mechanisms, session management, and protection against common security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, CSRF). Deduct 5 points if authentication is missing or insecure, 3 points if session management is weak, and 2 points if security best practices aren't followed. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the administrative functions for repair management implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether administrators can assign repair personnel and update repair statuses through a dedicated interface. Check if the admin dashboard provides a comprehensive view of all requests, assignment functionality, status update options, and potentially repair history/analytics. Deduct 4 points if assignment functionality is missing, 3 points if status updates aren't implemented, and 3 points if the admin view lacks necessary information density. 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 form validation failures, network interruptions, concurrent requests, permission violations, 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. Real-time notifications for status changes 2. Equipment categorization with image thumbnails 3. Repair history visualization/analytics 4. Automated follow-up scheduling). 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 status update mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to repair management (e.g., a built-in weather widget) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). 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 backend/frontend, data/logic/presentation 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 form design (consistent field widths, clear hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic form layouts. 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) Submit/update feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Status transition animations controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for form fields and actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between views, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/hmi-hydraulic-baler-7inch-800x480.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1372,
+  "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. Hello, I need to create an HMI for a hydraulic baler. Please make a demo for me. This HMI is a 7-inch resistive touchscreen with a resolution of 800*480.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the HMI interface design optimized for a 7-inch resistive touchscreen?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface elements are appropriately sized for finger touch (minimum 40x40px touch targets) on a resistive screen, and if the layout properly utilizes the 800x480 resolution. Button spacing should be at least 10px to prevent mis-touches common with resistive screens. Deduct 5 points if touch targets are too small, 5 points if elements extend beyond screen boundaries, and 5 points if text is illegible at normal viewing distance for industrial equipment. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the hydraulic baler control functions fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the HMI includes essential hydraulic baler controls such as start/stop buttons, pressure monitoring, bale density adjustment, emergency stop function, and cycle monitoring. Score 0 if core baler functions are missing, 5 if only basic controls are implemented, and 10 if comprehensive control including safety interlocks, pressure regulation, and operational modes (automatic/manual) are included. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is real-time system monitoring and visualization implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the interface displays critical real-time data like hydraulic pressure, cylinder position, motor status, and system temperature with appropriate gauges, indicators or trend graphs. Verify that visualization updates at appropriate intervals (≤500ms for critical parameters). Deduct 5 points if visualizations are static/non-updating, 3 points if update frequency is inadequate, and 5 points if key operational parameters are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are alarm management and error handling systems properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of alarm prioritization, visual/audible notifications for critical issues (pressure anomalies, motor overload, safety breaches), and troubleshooting guidance. Verify that errors are logged with timestamps and that the system provides clear recovery instructions. Deduct 5 points if alarms lack prioritization, 3 points if visual distinction between alarm levels is poor, and 5 points if no error logging mechanism exists. 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 sensor failures, communication interruptions, touch misalignments, rapid repeated presses) and provide appropriate error handling 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. User-customizable dashboard layout 2. Integrated maintenance scheduling 3. Multi-language support with automatic detection 4. Gesture controls for common actions). 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 access the same controls) 2. Function modules unrelated to baler operation (e.g., unnecessary entertainment features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance on limited industrial hardware (e.g., complex animations). 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/control logic/data processing layers), code maintainability for industrial settings, and efficient use of limited hardware resources. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code is not optimized for the limited processing power of industrial HMIs; deduct 5 points if the code lacks proper documentation for maintenance technicians. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet industrial HMI design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows industrial HMI principles: 1) High contrast colors suitable for varying light conditions 2) Consistent status indicator placement 3) Use of industrial-standard iconography 4) Glare-resistant color schemes for shop floor environments. Deduct 3 points for poor contrast that affects readability, 5 points for non-standard symbols that could cause operator confusion, and 5 points for cluttered screens that hinder quick information scanning. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction appropriate for industrial use?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions are suitable for industrial environments: 1) Confirmation dialogs for critical operations 2) Touch feedback appropriate for gloved operation 3) Visible system status at all times. Deduct 5 points for lack of operation confirmation for critical functions, 3 points for touch targets requiring precise touching unsuitable for gloved hands, and 5 points for operations requiring more than 3 steps to access emergency functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/html-server-monitoring-dashboard.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 755,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable. HTML page is required to display the following information: IP address, deployed services (e.g., Gateway*1, Worker ID*2), CPU utilization, and memory utilization.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the IP address information correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly fetches and displays the server's IP address information. It should use reliable methods like server-side APIs or JavaScript's fetch to retrieve this data. Score 0 if IP address is hardcoded or missing, 5 if it's implemented but without validation or formatting, and 10 if properly implemented with IPv4/IPv6 support and proper formatting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the deployed services (Gateway, Worker ID) properly displayed?",
+      "description": "Verify that the code properly retrieves and displays the Gateway and Worker ID information. Check whether it uses appropriate server-side data sources or API endpoints. Deduct 5 points if service information is hardcoded, 3 points if only partial service information is shown. Full score requires dynamic service discovery with proper error handling when services are unavailable.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is CPU utilization monitoring implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes accurate CPU utilization monitoring with appropriate data retrieval methods (server-side metrics API or JavaScript performance APIs). Check for real-time updates (using WebSockets or polling). Deduct 5 points if utilization data is simulated, 3 points if updates are too infrequent (>10s), and 3 points if there's no historical trending. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is memory utilization monitoring implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly retrieves and displays memory utilization data with appropriate units (MB/GB), percentage indicators, and visualization. Deduct 5 points if memory metrics are simulated, 3 points if there's no distinction between different memory types (heap/non-heap or used/available), and 3 points if there's no warning mechanism for high memory usage. 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 errors, API failures, missing 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. Auto-refresh with configurable intervals 2. Visual alerts for abnormal metrics 3. Interactive graphs showing historical data). 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 fetch the same metrics) 2. Function modules unrelated to system monitoring (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). 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 retrieval/processing/visualization layers), error handling patterns, and code maintainability. 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 there's no separation between data retrieval and presentation layers. 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) Data refresh doesn't interrupt user interaction 2) Loading states shown during data retrieval 3) Smooth transitions when data changes. Deduct 5 points for each refresh that disrupts user experience, 3 points for missing loading indicators, and 5 points for jarring data transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-hardware_management/kubernetes-monitoring-dashboard-features.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 371,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Tech stack: React + Ant Design + AntV\n\n1. Cluster status monitoring - Implement dynamic topology diagrams using AntV G6 to display Kubernetes node relationships. Support fault propagation analysis. Utilize ECharts to visualize memory/CPU/GPU utilization rates with alert capabilities when thresholds are exceeded.\n\n2. Support cross-time period data overlay comparison - Develop functionality that allows users to compare monitoring metrics across different time periods by overlaying multiple datasets on the same visualization, enabling trend analysis and anomaly detection.\n\n3. Develop alert rule configuration forms - Implement dynamic form rendering that adapts based on selected parameters. Support complex condition configuration with nested logical operators, threshold settings, and multi-metric correlation rules.\n\n4. Implement monitoring data filtering panel - Create an advanced filtering system with date selectors and multi-dimensional condition combination queries that allow users to precisely locate the data they need across various metrics and node categories.\n\n5. Real-time monitoring dashboard - Design and implement a comprehensive dashboard with auto-refreshing widgets, customizable layouts, and drill-down capabilities that allow users to navigate from high-level cluster views to detailed node-specific metrics.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic topology diagram using AntV G6 fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements a K8s cluster topology visualization with G6, including: 1) Correct node representation (master nodes, worker nodes, pods) with appropriate shapes and colors 2) Edge connections showing relationships/dependencies 3) Interactive node selection and highlighting of related components 4) Fault propagation visualization with path tracing. Score 0 if only basic nodes are displayed without relationships, 5 if static topology is shown, and 10 if full interactive topology with fault propagation analysis is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the ECharts visualizations for resource utilization implemented with alert capabilities?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes proper implementation of CPU/memory/GPU utilization charts with: 1) Real-time data updates 2) Configurable thresholds with visual indicators 3) Alert triggering mechanism when thresholds are exceeded 4) Historical data comparison. Deduct 3 points if charts are static without real-time updates, 3 points if thresholds cannot be configured, and 4 points if alert notifications are not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the cross-time period data overlay comparison functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code enables effective comparison of metrics across different time periods by: 1) Supporting multiple dataset overlays on the same chart 2) Providing clear visual differentiation between time periods 3) Implementing interactive time range selection 4) Including statistical analysis tools for comparing periods. Deduct 5 points if only basic overlay is implemented without proper legends/differentiation, 3 points if time selection is limited, and 2 points if statistical comparison is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic alert rule configuration form properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a fully dynamic form that: 1) Changes fields based on selected parameters 2) Supports complex nested logical operators (AND/OR/NOT) 3) Allows threshold configuration with various comparison operators 4) Enables multi-metric correlation rules. Score 0 if only basic form inputs exist, 5 if dynamic fields are implemented but without complex conditions, and 10 if full logical nesting and multi-metric correlation is supported.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as API failures, data loading errors, malformed responses, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper error boundaries, loading states, and fallback UI components. 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. AI-powered anomaly detection 2. Natural language query interface for metrics 3. Automated root cause analysis for failures 4. Context-aware recommendations for fixing issues). 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 visualization components (e.g., multiple chart libraries doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to monitoring (e.g., unnecessary administrative tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that reduce dashboard responsiveness). 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 fetching/processing/visualization layers), component reusability, state management, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper React patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no proper error handling or performance optimization. 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 Ant Design principles: 1) Consistent use of Ant Design components without customization that breaks the design system 2) Proper layout with appropriate spacing (following 8px grid system) 3) Professional information hierarchy (primary/secondary information properly distinguished). Deduct 3 points for each misaligned element, 5 points for inconsistent component styling, and 5 points for chaotic dashboard layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dashboard experience responsive and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the monitoring dashboard implements: 1) Auto-refresh functionality with configurable intervals 2) Customizable widget layouts that persist user preferences 3) Smooth drill-down navigation from overview to details 4) Responsive design that works across device sizes. Deduct 5 points if auto-refresh is missing, 3 points if layouts cannot be customized, 3 points if drill-down navigation is clunky, and 3 points if the design is not responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Hardware Management",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}