@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/earth-moon-orbital-simulation-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 394,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable for demonstration. Write a frontend program that simulates the orbits of the Earth and Moon.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the celestial mechanics simulation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements orbital physics including gravitational forces, elliptical orbits, and proper scaling. Check if the Earth-Moon system follows realistic orbital parameters (Moon's 27.3-day period, elliptical eccentricity ~0.055, proper distance ratios). Score 0 if basic circular motion is missing, 5 if only simple circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if accurate elliptical orbits with proper physics calculations are included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the real-time animation system properly constructed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the animation uses requestAnimationFrame for smooth 60fps rendering, includes time-based calculations rather than frame-based movement, and provides speed controls (pause/play/fast-forward). Check for proper canvas clearing and redrawing optimization. Deduct 5 points if animation stutters or lacks time control, 3 points if performance drops below 30fps during normal operation. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are interactive controls and visualization features comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the interface includes essential controls: zoom in/out, camera following options (Earth-centered, Moon-centered, system view), time acceleration controls, and orbital trail visualization. Evaluate if users can toggle between different viewing modes and adjust simulation parameters. Deduct 5 points if basic zoom/pan is missing, 3 points if no orbital trails are shown. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the coordinate system and scaling mathematically sound?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements proper coordinate transformations, handles astronomical distances with appropriate scaling factors, and maintains proportional relationships between celestial bodies. Check if the simulation accounts for the barycenter concept and relative size representations. Deduct 5 points if scaling is unrealistic, 3 points if coordinate system causes visual artifacts. Give 10 points if mathematically accurate scaling is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as extreme zoom levels, rapid time changes, browser window resizing, invalid input parameters, etc.) and provide friendly error handling or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases and maintain stable performance, giving 10 points. If 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 enhanced features that improve the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lunar phases visualization 2. Historical date simulation with accurate positions 3. Tidal effects indicator 4. Orbital prediction paths 5. Educational information panels). 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 rendering loops coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to orbital simulation (e.g., built-in weather widgets) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex particle systems for stars). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core simulation 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 physics engine/rendering/UI control layers), proper class/function organization, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no clear architecture is used; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no separation of concerns between calculation and presentation logic. 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) Appropriate space-themed color palette (dark backgrounds with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Proper UI element spacing and layout (controls don't obstruct the main view) 3) Professional typography and iconography (clear labels, intuitive control symbols). Deduct 3 points for each poorly positioned UI element, 5 points for color schemes that reduce visibility, and 5 points for cluttered or confusing interface layout. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactive experience follows usability principles: 1) Mouse/touch controls respond within 100ms 2) Smooth zoom and pan operations without jarring jumps 3) Clear visual feedback for all interactive elements 4) Intuitive gesture controls for navigation. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive control, 3 points for choppy zoom/pan operations, and 5 points for controls that lack clear visual feedback or are difficult to discover. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/earth-moon-orbital-system-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 424,
+  "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 piece of HTML frontend code that simulates the Earth-Moon orbital system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Earth-Moon orbital system accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the Earth-Moon orbital system physics, including proper orbital mechanics (elliptical orbit), correct proportional sizes (Earth diameter ≈ 3.7x Moon's), and realistic orbital period ratio. Score 0 if the basic orbital system is not implemented, 5 if only basic circular motion is implemented, and 10 if the simulation includes proper elliptical orbit with accurate parameters.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are celestial bodies accurately represented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the Earth and Moon are visually represented with accurate proportions, textures, and features (Earth with atmosphere/continents, Moon with craters/maria). Evaluate if the relative sizes match astronomical data (Moon ≈ 27% of Earth's diameter). Deduct 3 points if proportions are significantly off, 3 points if textures are missing or unrealistic, and 4 points if key visual features are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the simulation interactive and controllable?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation provides user interaction options such as speed control, zoom in/out functionality, rotation angle adjustment, or pause/resume capabilities. Check if orbital parameters can be modified through UI controls. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control, and 2 points if the controls are implemented but not intuitive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are additional astronomical phenomena incorporated?",
+      "description": "Review whether the implementation includes additional astronomical phenomena such as day/night cycle, lunar phases, solar illumination effects, proper shadow casting, or Earth's axial tilt. Deduct 2 points for each missing major phenomenon, with particular emphasis on lunar phases and shadow mechanics. 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 browser resizing, device orientation changes, touch input vs. mouse input, etc.) and provide fallback 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. Informational overlays with astronomical data 2. Historical moon landing site markers 3. Time-lapse controls showing orbital patterns over time). 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 calculations that could be optimized (e.g., recalculating constant values in animation loops) 2. Function modules unrelated to the Earth-Moon system (e.g., unrelated planetary objects) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems or shader effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculations, rendering, and UI controls), code organization, and performance optimization techniques (such as RequestAnimationFrame usage, asset optimization). Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the animation performance is poor (< 30 FPS on standard hardware); deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or clear structure. 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) Appropriate background (dark theme for space context) 2) Proper layout with clear focus on the orbital system 3) Professional labeling and information display (if any). Deduct 3 points for visually distracting elements, 5 points for poor color choices that reduce visibility of celestial bodies, and 5 points for cluttered or illegible UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and scientifically accurate?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation conforms to both technical and scientific standards: 1) Consistent frame rate (≥ 60 FPS) 2) Smooth transitions and movements 3) Accurate representation of orbital mechanics including speed variations at different orbital positions. Deduct 3 points for jerky animations, 4 points for scientifically inaccurate motion patterns, and 3 points for visual glitches during animation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/earth-rotation-revolution-demonstration.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 362,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for display when possible. Create a frontend program that demonstrates Earth's rotation and revolution.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Earth rotation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code correctly simulates Earth's rotation around its axis (approximately 23.5° tilt) with proper day/night cycle visualization. The rotation should be smooth and at an appropriate speed (either real-time scaled or user-controllable). Deduct 5 points if the rotation axis is incorrect, 3 points if there's no visual indication of day/night transition, and 5 points if rotation animation isn't smooth (jerky or inconsistent).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is Earth's revolution around the Sun properly demonstrated?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code accurately shows Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun, including proper positioning, orbital path visualization, and seasonal changes. The revolution should demonstrate the relationship between Earth's axial tilt and seasons. Deduct 5 points if the orbit shape is incorrectly circular rather than elliptical, 3 points if seasonal changes aren't indicated, and 5 points if the orbital mechanics appear physically unrealistic.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the celestial bodies visually realistic?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the Earth and Sun models use appropriate textures, lighting effects, and proportional sizing. The Earth should have recognizable continents, oceans, and possibly cloud layers. The Sun should have appropriate lighting effects. Score 0 if basic spheres are used without textures, 5 if basic textures are applied but lighting is flat, and 10 if both bodies are realistically rendered with proper texturing and lighting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there an interactive user interface for controlling the simulation?",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation includes user controls for adjusting simulation speed, pausing/resuming, zooming in/out, and changing viewing angles. Verify if there are additional educational features like information overlays or tooltips. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control (speed, pause, view adjustment) and 2 points if the controls aren't intuitive.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resizing, performance throttling on different devices, touch vs mouse input, etc.) and provide graceful degradation. 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. Moon phases visualization 2. Real-time shadows based on Sun position 3. Atmospheric scattering effects 4. Educational overlays showing equinoxes/solstices). 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 techniques 2. Function modules unrelated to Earth's rotation/revolution (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without educational value. 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 rendering/physics/UI layers), reusable components, and optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code doesn't use appropriate 3D libraries (Three.js, Babylon.js, etc.) efficiently; deduct 5 points if there are no performance optimizations for 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) Clean UI that doesn't obstruct the celestial visualization 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 visually distracting UI, and 5 points for poor contrast between UI elements and the space background. 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) Animation runs at consistent 60fps 2) Camera transitions are smooth when changing perspectives 3) Zooming maintains focus point properly. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops during animation, 3 points for abrupt camera movements, and 5 points for confusing spatial orientation when navigating the scene. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/flower-petals-falling-computer-desktop.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 789,
+  "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 display. Create a program for flower petals falling on a computer desktop.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the flower petal animation system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the flower petal floating physics with realistic gravity, wind effects, and natural randomization of movement paths. Check for proper use of requestAnimationFrame or similar timing mechanisms. Score 0 if no animation is implemented, 5 if basic falling animation exists, and 10 if petals exhibit natural, varied falling patterns with proper physics simulation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the implementation support desktop integration?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code creates a transparent overlay that properly integrates with the desktop environment (using Electron, browser features in kiosk mode, or appropriate system APIs). Check if it allows normal desktop usage while petals are falling. Deduct 5 points if it only works in a browser window, and 3 points if it interferes with normal desktop operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there proper petal customization and variety?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code allows for multiple petal types, colors, sizes, and shapes. Examine if it includes at least 3 different flower types with appropriate seasonal variations. Score 0 if there's only one type of petal, 5 if there are a few variations, and 10 if there's extensive customization with realistic petal rendering using SVG or Canvas.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the program have resource management and performance optimization?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements object pooling, proper garbage collection, and throttling mechanisms to prevent memory leaks and CPU overuse. Verify that it scales appropriately based on screen size and system capabilities. Deduct 5 points if performance degrades over time, and 3 points if it doesn't adjust for system load. 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 window resize, background/foreground transitions, different screen resolutions, etc.) and provide graceful error handling. Code with strong robustness should adapt to various environments without breaking, 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. Interactive petals that respond to mouse movements 2. Day/night cycle or weather effects 3. Seasonal variations or holiday themes). 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 animation calculations that could be optimized 2. Feature modules unrelated to petal animation (e.g., unnecessary UI controls) 3. Effects that harm performance without adding value (e.g., excessive particle systems). 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 rendering/physics/configuration layers), code organization, and implementation efficiency. Deduct 5 points if global variables are excessively used; deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or documentation; deduct 5 points if the implementation uses inefficient algorithms or approaches. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the visual design meet professional standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the petal designs are visually appealing: 1) Natural-looking shapes and textures 2) Appropriate transparency and shading effects 3) Subtle color variations within each petal type. Deduct 3 points for unrealistic petal shapes, 5 points for flat or cartoonish representations lacking detail, and 5 points for unnatural colors or textures. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and natural-looking?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animations conform to real-world physics: 1) Smooth frame rate (≥ 30fps) 2) Natural oscillation and rotation during falling 3) Realistic acceleration and wind effects. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for unnatural movement patterns, and 5 points for uniform/robotic petal behavior lacking variation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-celestial-movement-sun-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 443,
+  "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. Write a piece of frontend code that simulates the motion of the sun as a celestial body.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar motion simulation physically accurate?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code models the sun's position correctly based on astronomical principles (taking into account earth's rotation, seasonal variations, or orbital mechanics). Score 0 if basic motion is missing, 5 if simple circular motion is implemented, 10 if the simulation includes proper angular velocity and potentially seasonal variations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the visual representation of the sun properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the sun is rendered with appropriate visual effects (sun disk, corona, rays, glow) and whether the code adjusts lighting conditions based on the sun's position. Deduct 5 points if the sun lacks visual detail, 3 points if lighting effects are static. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a day/night cycle simulation with corresponding environmental changes?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code simulates color changes in the sky, horizon effects, and potentially other elements (clouds, stars at night) based on sun position. Score 0 if no atmospheric changes occur, 5 if basic color shifts exist, and 10 if there's a complete day/night transition with appropriate lighting and environmental effects.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the code provide user interaction for controlling the simulation?",
+      "description": "Check if users can control time speed, pause/play the simulation, change viewing angles, or adjust simulation parameters. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control, and 5 points if there's no user interaction at all. 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 browser resizing, device rotation, performance throttling, etc.) and provide fallback 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. Weather effects interacting with sunlight 2. Realistic lens flare effects 3. Location-based simulation using geolocation). 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 rendering techniques 2. Function modules unrelated to solar motion (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Excessively complex effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary particle systems). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculations/rendering/user interface layers), reusability of components, and optimization techniques. 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 rendering optimization techniques are absent. 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 in the sky/environment rendering 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information displays 3) Professional font system if text elements are included. Deduct 3 points for each visually jarring element, 5 points for unrealistic color combinations in the sky rendering, and 5 points for poorly integrated UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation conforms to natural movement: 1) Consistent frame rate (target 60fps) 2) Smooth transitions between day/night states 3) Natural easing for sun movement rather than linear motion. Deduct 5 points for choppy animation, 3 points for unrealistic movement patterns, and 5 points for abrupt transitions between states. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-code-to-simulate-solar-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 444,
+  "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 frontend code to simulate the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic solar system simulation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the celestial bodies of our solar system (Sun, 8 planets, and optionally dwarf planets/moons) with their relative sizes and orbital distances. Check if planet positions are calculated using proper mathematical formulas (Kepler's laws or simplified circular orbits). Score 0 if fewer than 5 planets are implemented, 5 if all planets are present but with inaccurate scales/orbits, and 10 if an astronomically accurate model is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the planetary motion animation properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the orbital mechanics implementation, including correct rotation speed ratios between planets, proper direction of rotation, and smooth animation rendering (using requestAnimationFrame or similar techniques). Check if the animation maintains a consistent frame rate (ideally 60fps). Deduct 3 points if planets move at arbitrary speeds, 4 points if animations stutter noticeably, and 3 points if orbital periods don't maintain proper relative timing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a user interaction system for exploring the solar system?",
+      "description": "Check whether the simulation allows users to interact with the solar system through features like zooming, rotating the viewpoint, clicking on planets for details, adjusting simulation speed, or following specific planets. Deduct 3 points if only basic zoom functionality exists, 4 points if the camera control is difficult to use, and 3 points if no detailed information is available when selecting celestial bodies. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there accurate visual representation of celestial characteristics?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes realistic visual elements such as planet textures, relative sizes, distinctive features (Saturn's rings, Jupiter's Great Red Spot), appropriate lighting effects (with the Sun as light source), and shadow casting. Deduct 3 points if textures are missing, 4 points if lighting/shadows are incorrectly implemented, and 3 points if distinctive planetary features are 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 browser resizing, varying device performance, touch vs. mouse inputs, WebGL support detection) and provide fallback mechanisms or helpful error messages. Code with strong robustness should gracefully degrade on lower-end devices and handle window resizing properly, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no edge cases 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. Time controls to speed up/slow down/reverse simulation 2. Educational information about each planet 3. Accurate star background with constellations 4. Orbital path visualization 5. Space missions/satellites visualization). Add 2 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 calculation of planetary positions (e.g., recalculating constants repeatedly) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without adding value (e.g., excessive particle effects that cause lag). 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 astronomy logic/rendering/UI layers), performance optimization techniques (object pooling, shader efficiency), and code maintainability. Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 4 points if the rendering pipeline isn't optimized for a large number of objects; deduct 3 points if there's no separation between the celestial mechanics calculations and rendering logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the visual design follows modern UI principles: 1) Clean interface with unobstructed view of the simulation 2) Proper contrast between UI elements and the space background 3) Professional typography for informational elements (readable against dark backgrounds, proper hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 4 points for poor readability of text against the background, and 3 points for inconsistent design language. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interaction meets performance standards: 1) Smooth camera movements without jittering 2) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback 3) Consistent frame rate even with multiple planets in view. Deduct 3 points for input lag exceeding 100ms, 4 points for frame rate drops below 30fps during normal operation, and 3 points for jerky transitions when changing view modes or focusing on different planets. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-engine-piston-movement-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 295,
+  "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. Write a frontend program that simulates engine piston movement.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the engine piston simulation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation correctly models the piston motion physics (sinusoidal movement pattern, proper timing for strokes). Check if the connecting rod and crankshaft relationship is correctly represented mathematically. Score 0 if basic motion is absent, 5 if only basic up/down movement exists, and 10 if the complete four-stroke cycle (intake, compression, power, exhaust) is accurately visualized.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the visualization technically sound?",
+      "description": "Review whether the implementation uses appropriate frontend technologies (Canvas/SVG/WebGL) optimally. Check if the rendering loop maintains consistent frame rates (ideally 60fps) without stuttering. Deduct 5 points if inappropriate technology is chosen for the visualization (e.g., DOM manipulation for high-frequency updates), 3 points for frame rate issues, and 2 points for poor performance on mobile devices.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are physics parameters configurable and interactive?",
+      "description": "Assess if the simulation allows for user configuration of key parameters (RPM, cylinder dimensions, stroke length, etc.) with real-time response to changes. Review whether the UI provides interactive controls (sliders, inputs) that immediately affect the simulation. Deduct 5 points if parameters are hard-coded, 5 points if changes require page refresh, and 3 points if parameter ranges are unrealistic or unbound.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the simulation include educational features?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation includes informative elements such as real-time measurements (pressure, temperature, velocity), phase indicators, or detailed explanations of the engine cycle. Score 0 if no educational features exist, 5 if basic labels are present, and 10 if comprehensive, interactive learning features are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (like extreme parameter values, browser resizing, device rotation, etc.) and provide friendly error handling. Code with strong robustness should maintain simulation integrity across these edge cases, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no error handling exists, 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. Multiple viewpoints/cross-sections 2. Heat visualization during combustion 3. Sound effects synchronized with engine operation). 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 calculations that could be optimized 2. Visualization elements that don't contribute to understanding the engine mechanics 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of physics calculation/rendering/UI components), code reusability, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation between simulation logic and rendering. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows mechanical engineering visual conventions: 1) Accurate proportional representation 2) Clear differentiation between moving/static parts 3) Professional technical aesthetic (proper use of wireframes, cutaways, or transparent elements). Deduct 3 points for each visual inaccuracy, 5 points for unrealistic motion, and 5 points for poor readability of the mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation and controls conform to user expectations: 1) Consistent animation timing relative to selected RPM 2) Immediate visual feedback when parameters are changed 3) Smooth transitions between states or views. Deduct 5 points for delayed animation updates, 3 points for jittery motion, and 5 points for UI controls that don't provide immediate visual feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-program-simulates-celestial-body-movements.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 403,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Write a frontend program that simulates celestial body movements.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the celestial body physics simulation accurate?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements gravitational physics equations (F = G*m1*m2/r^2), orbital mechanics, and proper scaling of celestial parameters. Check if the simulation handles velocity vectors, acceleration calculations, and position updates using appropriate numerical integration methods (Euler, Verlet, or Runge-Kutta). Score 0 if basic physics are missing, 5 if only simple circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if it includes realistic gravitational interactions between multiple bodies.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the visual rendering system well-implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the rendering approach (Canvas 2D, WebGL, SVG, or Three.js) and assess whether it effectively displays celestial bodies with appropriate textures, lighting effects, and perspective. Check for proper scaling between bodies, visual cues for distance/size relationships, and smooth frame transitions. Deduct 3 points if rendering is basic without textures, 5 points if performance issues occur with more than 5 bodies, and 8 points if the visual representation is scientifically inaccurate. Full score for photorealistic rendering with optimized performance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the user interaction system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess the implementation of controls for manipulating the simulation (pause/play, speed adjustment, zoom in/out, rotation/panning). Check for features like clicking on bodies for information, dragging to adjust orbits, or adding new celestial objects. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction, 5 points if view manipulation is absent, and 3 points if the interface doesn't provide feedback during interactions. Full score requires intuitive controls with responsive feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the time control and simulation scaling implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes time scaling functionality (accelerating/decelerating simulation), time-step consistency regardless of frame rate, and prevention of calculation errors at high speeds. Check for a frame-rate independent physics calculation and proper handling of the animation loop. Deduct 5 points if time scaling is absent, 3 points if physics breaks at high speeds, and 3 points if the simulation doesn't maintain consistent calculations across different devices. Full score requires sophisticated time controls with delta-time implementation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases such as browser resizing, device rotation, touch events on mobile, and performance degradation with many bodies. Check for proper error handling, memory management (avoiding WebGL context loss), and graceful degradation on less powerful devices. Code with strong robustness should handle all these scenarios, giving 10 points. If robustness is average with some edge cases handled, give 5 points, and if no error handling exists, 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. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Trail visualization for orbital paths 3. Real-time data visualization of orbital parameters 4. Realistic star field background with actual constellations). 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 calculation systems (e.g., multiple physics engines running simultaneously) 2. Feature modules unrelated to celestial simulation (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Excessive effects that severely impact performance (e.g., particle systems for every minor interaction). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core simulation accuracy is compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of physics engine, rendering system, and UI controls), code reusability (object-oriented design for celestial bodies), and performance optimizations (request animation frame usage, object pooling, GPU acceleration). Deduct 3 points if global state is overused, 3 points if there's significant code duplication, 2 points if no comments or documentation exist, and 2 points if browser compatibility is not considered. 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 astronomy visualization principles: 1) Scientific color schemes for celestial bodies 2) Clear contrast between bodies and background 3) Proportional representation or clear indication when scales are modified 4) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the simulation. Deduct 3 points for inaccurate celestial colors/textures, 3 points for cluttered controls, and 4 points for poor visibility of important elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains 60fps performance on standard hardware, transitions between zoom levels are smooth, and interactive manipulations (dragging bodies, adjusting orbits) provide immediate visual feedback. Deduct 3 points for each jerky transition, 3 points for delayed response to user input, 2 points for missing visual cues during interactions, and 2 points if the simulation slows noticeably with moderate complexity. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}