@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-program-simulates-operation-of-space-elevator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 244,
+  "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 purposes. Write a frontend program that simulates the operation of a space elevator (solar elevator).",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the space elevator physics simulation accurate?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code simulates real physics principles correctly: 1) Counterweight mechanics and balance, 2) Variable gravitational effects based on altitude, 3) Tension calculations in the tether cable. Score 0 if no physics simulation exists, 5 if basic motion is simulated without accurate physics, and 10 for comprehensive physics with proper equations and constants.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the visual representation of the space elevator implemented completely?",
+      "description": "Check if the visualization includes all key components: Earth representation, tether cable with proper scaling, climber/elevator car, counterweight, and geostationary orbit position. Deduct 3 points if Earth's curvature is inaccurate, 2 points if the tether lacks visual tension indicators, and 3 points if the climber mechanics aren't visually clear. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the elevator movement and control system interactive?",
+      "description": "Review whether users can control the elevator's speed, direction, or stopping positions. Check if the interface includes altitude indicators, speed controls, and emergency protocols. Deduct 5 points if there are no interactive controls, 3 points if controls exist but lack feedback mechanisms, and 2 points if altitude changes aren't properly visualized. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the simulation include solar power mechanics?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements solar energy collection mechanics, energy consumption models based on elevator load and speed, and energy efficiency visualization. Score 0 if solar aspects are completely missing, 5 if basic solar elements exist without proper energy calculations, and 10 for a comprehensive solar power system with variable efficiency based on position relative to Earth and Sun.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid user inputs, extreme speed settings, resource limitations, browser compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Day/night cycle affecting solar efficiency 2. Space debris avoidance mini-game 3. Realistic atmospheric visual effects at different altitudes). 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 control speed) 2. Function modules unrelated to space elevators (e.g., unrelated space exploration features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems that slow rendering). 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 physics simulation/rendering/user interface 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 movements, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-solar-system-motion-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 291,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Help me write frontend code that simulates the solar system in motion.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system structure accurately modeled?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly sets up the sun and planets with appropriate scaling for size, distance, and orbital periods. Check if all eight planets are included (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) with their distinctive characteristics. Score 0 if only basic circles are used, 5 if planets have appropriate sizes but incorrect orbital distances, and 10 if the model maintains scientifically accurate relative proportions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the planetary motion mathematically correct?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the orbital mechanics follow Kepler's laws with elliptical orbits and varying speeds (faster when closer to the sun). Check if the rotation axes and tilts are implemented correctly. Deduct 5 points if orbits are perfectly circular rather than elliptical, 3 points if orbital speeds don't vary according to position, and 5 points if rotation mechanics are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the visual representations of celestial bodies detailed?",
+      "description": "Check if the planets have distinctive textures/appearances (Earth's blue oceans/white clouds, Jupiter's bands, Saturn's rings, etc.). Verify if lighting effects create appropriate shadowing as planets rotate. Award 0 points for basic colored circles, 5 points for basic textures, and 10 points for detailed textures with proper lighting effects.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the simulation include interactive features?",
+      "description": "Assess whether users can interact with the simulation (zoom in/out, change perspective, adjust simulation speed, focus on specific planets). Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction feature. Award full 10 points only if the simulation allows smooth camera transitions between different celestial bodies with intuitive controls.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, different screen sizes, varying performance capabilities) 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. Realistic star background 2. Comet/asteroid visualizations 3. Time progression display 4. Educational information tooltips). 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 logics 2. Function modules unrelated to astronomical simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems 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 physics/rendering/interaction layers), performance optimization techniques (like instancing for stars), and browser compatibility. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code recomputes stable values in render loops; deduct 5 points if the simulation drastically slows down on mobile 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) Appropriate use of space (planets properly scaled against the vastness of space) 2) Balanced composition that guides the eye naturally 3) Controls that are intuitive yet unobtrusive. Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 5 points for confusing visual hierarchy, and 5 points for controls that obscure the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and performance optimized?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains a consistent frame rate (minimum 30fps) and uses appropriate rendering techniques: 1) Efficient use of WebGL/Canvas 2) Level-of-detail adjustments based on zoom level 3) Proper handling of off-screen objects. Deduct 5 points for noticeable stuttering during normal operation, 3 points for lack of performance optimizations, and 5 points if the simulation becomes unusable on average hardware. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-solar-system-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 359,
+  "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 frontend program that simulates the motion of the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model astronomically accurate?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements planetary orbits with proper relative sizes, distances, and orbital periods. Review if planetary motion follows Kepler's laws with elliptical orbits. Score 0 if planets are randomly positioned, 5 if relative sizes and orbits are approximated, and 10 if the simulation includes accurate orbital mechanics including eccentricity and inclination.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are celestial body movements properly animated?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the animation implementation for planetary rotation and revolution. Check if requestAnimationFrame is used for smooth animation instead of setInterval/setTimeout. Verify that the animation maintains consistent speed regardless of device performance. Deduct 5 points if animation is jerky on standard hardware, 3 points if the animation loop isn't optimized for performance. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the visualization dimensionally appropriate?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the visualization effectively handles the vast scale differences in the solar system through techniques like logarithmic scaling or interactive zooming. Check if the simulation offers multiple viewing perspectives (heliocentric vs. geocentric). Deduct 5 points if scale representation is misleading, 3 points if only a single fixed perspective is available. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include interactive features?",
+      "description": "Review whether the simulation offers user controls like speed adjustment, camera angle changes, focus tracking of specific planets, and information display on hover/click. Deduct 5 points if basic time controls (pause/play/speed) are missing, 3 points if camera manipulation is limited. Give 10 points if the simulation is fully interactive with multiple control options.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, device rotation, performance throttling, etc.) and provide graceful degradation for older browsers. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Comet/asteroid visualization 2. Space mission trajectories 3. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 4. Astronomical event simulation like eclipses). 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 calculation of orbital positions 2. Feature modules unrelated to solar system simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without educational value (e.g., excessive particle effects). 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 engine/rendering/UI controllers), appropriate use of design patterns, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is high; deduct 5 points if no optimization is implemented for complex 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) Appropriate color scheme for space visualization (dark background, contrasting planet colors) 2) Clean UI layout for controls and information displays 3) Professional typography and labeling system. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor visibility of celestial bodies, and 5 points for chaotic information display. 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 user expectations: 1) Responsive zoom and pan controls 2) Smooth transitions when changing focus between planets 3) Intuitive time control interface. Deduct 5 points for laggy interaction, 3 points for confusing navigation controls, and 5 points for disorienting camera movements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 413,
+  "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. Create a frontend program that simulates the movement of the sun.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the sun's basic movement simulation implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Check if the code accurately simulates the sun's arc movement across the sky using proper mathematics (sin/cos functions for circular path). Verify if the animation runs smoothly with requestAnimationFrame rather than setInterval. Score 0 if no movement, 5 if basic animation exists but path is inaccurate, 10 if the trajectory is physically realistic with proper timing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the simulation include day/night cycle visualization?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code implements a complete day/night cycle with color changes in the sky (gradient from blue to orange/red at sunset/sunrise to dark blue/black at night). Check if light intensity changes accordingly and if there's appropriate ambient lighting simulation. Deduct 5 points if the transition isn't smooth, 3 points if only basic color change exists. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there an interactive control mechanism for the simulation?",
+      "description": "Assess if users can control the simulation through features like play/pause buttons, speed adjustment, manual time setting, or dragging the sun. Check if controls respond immediately (≤100ms) and if transitions between states are smooth. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control, and 5 points if interaction is sluggish. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the visualization include environmental elements that respond to the sun's position?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes reactive elements like shadows that change direction/length based on sun position, plants/objects that respond to daylight, or atmospheric effects (like lens flare). Deduct 3 points for each missing environmental response that would make the simulation more realistic. 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 resizing, browser compatibility issues, performance throttling on slow devices) 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. Geographic location input to match real-world sun patterns 2. Weather effects that interact with sunlight 3. Realistic light refraction/atmosphere simulation). 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 implementations of similar animations 2. Function modules unrelated to sun movement simulation 3. Fancy effects that significantly affect performance without adding to the core simulation. 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 animation logic/rendering/user interface), consistent naming conventions, and optimized rendering techniques (like canvas vs. DOM elements). Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if animation frames are inefficiently managed; deduct 5 points if there's no performance optimization for complex visuals. 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 principles: 1) Natural color palette for sky/sun gradients 2) Proper scaling that works across different screen sizes 3) Professional use of light/shadow effects that mimic real physics. Deduct 3 points for unrealistic colors, 5 points for poor scaling on different screens, and 5 points for physically impossible lighting effects. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation performs consistently: 1) Maintains 60fps even with complex elements 2) Sun movement is fluid without jitter 3) Transitions between time periods are natural and gradual. Deduct 5 points for each noticeable frame drop or stutter, 3 points for abrupt transitions between day/night states, and 5 points for inconsistent animation speeds. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-walking-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 287,
+  "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 front-end program that simulates walking.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the walking animation physically accurate?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the walking animation correctly implements biomechanical principles: leg swing motion, weight shifting, and proper stride length. Score 0 if there's no animation cycle, 5 if basic keyframes are implemented but movement looks unnatural, and 10 if the walking demonstrates a complete gait cycle with natural weight transfer and proper foot placement.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the character model properly constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the character model has appropriate joint articulation for walking (hip, knee, ankle joints with correct rotation constraints). Deduct 3 points if joints bend unnaturally, 5 points if the model lacks necessary articulation points, and 5 points if proportions are significantly distorted. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the walk cycle timing natural and adjustable?",
+      "description": "Review whether the animation timing follows natural human walking patterns (approximately 1-2 seconds per cycle) and whether speed can be adjusted dynamically. Score 0 if timing is fixed and unnatural, 5 if basic timing is implemented but lacks variability, and 10 if the animation includes configurable speed, acceleration/deceleration, and natural timing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the walking simulation include environmental interaction?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the walking character can interact with environmental elements (e.g., adjusting to terrain height differences, avoiding obstacles, responding to surface friction). Deduct 5 points if the character walks through obstacles, 3 points if terrain adaptation is missing, and 3 points if no surface interaction 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 window resizing, browser compatibility issues, performance optimization for slower devices, etc.) and provide smooth degradation when needed. 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-controllable camera angles 2. Weather/lighting effects that affect walking style 3. Footprint/sound effects synchronized with steps). 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 animation functions 2. Function modules unrelated to walking simulation 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating animation logic/rendering/user input layers), performance optimization, and code organization. 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 optimization for animation performance. 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 visual presentation of the walking character 2) Proper contrast between character and background 3) Professional UI elements if present (controls, settings panels). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor contrast making it hard to see the animation, and 5 points for chaotic layout of controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and free of visual artifacts?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation runs at consistent frame rates (minimum 30fps) and transitions smoothly between animation phases. Check for: 1) No visible stuttering 2) Smooth transitions between animation cycles 3) No clipping or floating issues. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops, 3 points for jerky transitions between animation steps, and 5 points for persistent clipping issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/galton-board-program-html.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1720,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Implement a Galton board program using HTML language.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Galton board physics simulation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the physics of ball movement through HTML/JavaScript, including gravity simulation, collision detection with pegs, and realistic bouncing mechanics. The ball should exhibit proper acceleration due to gravity and random deflection upon hitting pegs. Score 0 if no physics simulation is implemented, 5 if only basic gravity is present without proper collision mechanics, and 10 if realistic physics with proper momentum and random distribution is fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the visual representation of the Galton board properly constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the HTML/CSS implementation includes a proper triangular peg arrangement, collection bins at the bottom, and clear visual boundaries. The pegs should be arranged in a mathematically correct pattern that creates the binomial distribution. Deduct 5 points if the peg arrangement is irregular or mathematically incorrect, and 3 points if the visual proportions don't match a real Galton board. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the program demonstrate proper statistical distribution visualization?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation produces and displays the characteristic bell curve (normal distribution) when multiple balls are dropped. The program should include a histogram or counter showing ball accumulation in each bin, and ideally overlay the theoretical binomial distribution curve. Deduct 5 points if no statistical visualization is provided, and 3 points if the distribution doesn't converge to the expected bell curve after sufficient trials. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are interactive controls and animation features properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes user controls for dropping balls (single or multiple), adjusting simulation speed, resetting the board, and pausing/resuming animation. The ball animation should be smooth and visually appealing with proper frame rates. Deduct 5 points if no user controls are provided, and 3 points if animations are choppy or lack smooth transitions. Give 10 points if comprehensive controls with smooth animations are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as rapid clicking, browser performance limitations, edge cases in physics calculations, etc.) and provide friendly error handling or performance optimization. Code with strong robustness should prevent memory leaks during long simulations and handle browser compatibility issues. Give 10 points for excellent robustness, 5 points for average handling, and 0 points if no exception handling is present.",
+      "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 educational or entertainment value (e.g., 1. Real-time probability calculations and predictions 2. Customizable board parameters (peg count, ball size) 3. Sound effects synchronized with collisions 4. Historical data tracking and comparison). 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 ball drop mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to Galton board simulation (e.g., unrelated games or calculators) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex particle systems that slow down the physics). 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), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or object-oriented principles are not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if functions are not properly separated or commented. 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 with clear contrast between pegs, balls, and background 2) Proper proportional relationships between board elements 3) Professional typography for labels and statistics (font size ≥ 14px, clear hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for each visually cluttered element, 5 points for poor color contrast that affects readability, and 5 points for disproportionate element sizing. 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) Ball animation frame rate ≥ 30fps for smooth motion 2) Interactive button response delay ≤ 100ms 3) Collision animations that provide clear visual feedback 4) Smooth statistical updates without jarring jumps. Deduct 5 points for each choppy animation sequence, 3 points for delayed user input response, and 5 points for unclear visual feedback during interactions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/html-celestial-motion-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 376,
+  "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 and displayable. Help me write an aesthetically pleasing HTML program for a celestial planetary motion simulation.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the celestial planetary motion simulation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements Keplerian orbital mechanics (elliptical orbits, varying velocity based on position) or simplified circular orbits with appropriate physics. Check if planets maintain proper relative sizes, distances, and orbital periods. Score 0 if planets don't move at all, 5 if motion exists but is physically inaccurate, and 10 if the simulation closely approximates real celestial mechanics.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the simulation include a comprehensive solar system representation?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes at least the Sun, Earth, and Moon with distinct visual representations. Additional points for including more planets, moons, asteroid belts, or other celestial bodies. Deduct 5 points if only basic shapes are used without textures/details, 3 points if scale relationships are severely distorted. Full score requires at least 5 distinct celestial bodies with appropriate characteristics.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the code implement interactive viewing controls?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can interact with the simulation through controls like zoom in/out, rotation, speed adjustment, or perspective changes. Deduct 5 points if no interaction exists, 3 points if interactions are limited to basic functions. Check if the camera transitions are smooth when changing viewpoints. The full score requires at least 3 distinct interaction methods with the simulation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there informational/educational content integrated with the simulation?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes features like planet labels, orbital paths visualization, distance indicators, or informational tooltips when hovering over planets. Deduct 5 points if no informational elements exist, 3 points if information is static and non-interactive. Full score requires both visual indicators and textual information that enhances the educational value of the simulation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resizing, different screen resolutions, varying performance capabilities, etc.) and provide graceful degradation or responsive design. Code with strong robustness should work across modern browsers and device types, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if major issues occur in standard scenarios, 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 effects including shadows 2. Atmospheric glow around planets 3. Integration with astronomical real-time data 4. Star backgrounds with actual constellations). 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 rendering methods that could impact performance 2. Feature bloat unrelated to celestial simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Excessive visual effects that detract from the core simulation. 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 physics calculation/rendering/interaction layers), code organization, and performance optimization. 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 no performance considerations are implemented for animation smoothness. 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 palette appropriate for space visualization (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional typography for labels and information (legible against the background). Deduct 3 points for each visually jarring element, 5 points for poor color choices that reduce visibility, and 5 points for cluttered or disorganized UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and visually pleasing?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the planetary motion animations are fluid and visually satisfying: 1) Consistent frame rate (target 60fps) 2) Smooth orbital transitions without jerky movements 3) Appropriate animation speed with options to adjust. Deduct 5 points for choppy animations, 3 points for visual artifacts during motion, and 5 points for fixed animation speeds that are either too fast or too slow to appreciate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/html-motion-planets-solar-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 289,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for display. Generate HTML code for the motion of planets in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system structure accurate?",
+      "description": "Check if the model correctly represents the planets in our solar system (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) with relatively accurate proportions and orbital positions. Pluto's inclusion is optional. Deduct 2 points for each missing major planet or severe size discrepancy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the planetary orbital mechanics implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements Kepler's laws of planetary motion, with elliptical orbits, varying orbital speeds (faster when closer to the Sun), and proper orbital periods. Give 10 points for physically accurate simulation, 5 points for simplified but visually convincing orbits, and 0 points if planets move in perfect circles at constant speeds without any orbital physics.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the animation implement planetary rotation and revolution?",
+      "description": "Check if both planetary rotation (around their own axes) and revolution (around the Sun) are implemented with appropriate relative speeds. Each planet should have a distinct rotation period and orbital period based on astronomical data. Deduct 3 points if only revolution is implemented without rotation, and 5 points if the relative speeds are grossly inaccurate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are celestial textures and visual details implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the quality of visual representation including textures for planets, the Sun's glow effect, stars in the background, and other visual elements like rings for Saturn. Give 10 points for high-quality texturing and detailed celestial bodies, 5 points for basic colored spheres with minimal details, and 0 points for primitive shapes without any texture work.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, browser compatibility issues, different screen resolutions) and provide appropriate adaptations. 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. Interactive camera controls to view from different angles 2. Information panels for each planet 3. Time controls to speed up/slow down the simulation). 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 animation loops) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system visualization (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (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 logic/physics calculation/UI components), performance optimization techniques, and maintainable code structure. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the animation is not optimized with requestAnimationFrame or if WebGL/Canvas is not properly utilized when appropriate. 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 (realistic space environment colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (appropriate scale of the solar system) 3) Professional labeling system (if planet labels are included). Deduct 3 points for unrealistic coloring, 5 points for inappropriate scaling that makes visualization unclear, and 5 points for poorly integrated UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation performs smoothly: 1) Consistent frame rate ≥ 30fps 2) Smooth transitions between camera perspectives (if implemented) 3) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for stuttering animations, 3 points for delayed response to user interactions, and 5 points for animation glitches during planetary movements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}