@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/millikan-oil-drop-experiment-simulation-webpage.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1232,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Design a Millikan oil drop experiment simulation webpage that allows dynamic changes to the electric field voltage, oil drop height, and oil drop charge; the webpage needs to clearly display the height of two metal plates, with the lower metal plate's height defaulted to 0; the webpage should store multiple experiment records displayed in a list format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core physics simulation of the Millikan oil drop experiment accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements the fundamental physics principles of the Millikan oil drop experiment, including the balance between gravitational and electrical forces. Verify that the simulation handles the following equations correctly: F_electric = qE (where q is charge, E is electric field), F_gravity = mg, and whether terminal velocity calculations incorporate air resistance/viscosity. Score 0 if the physics model is incorrect, 5 if basic forces are implemented but with simplifications, and 10 if the complete physics model including air resistance is accurately implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the adjustable parameters (electric field voltage, oil drop height, oil drop charge) properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface provides intuitive controls for adjusting the three key parameters. Check if voltage changes appropriately affect the electric field strength and consequently the oil drop movement. Verify that changing the initial drop height correctly repositions the drop, and that modifying the charge value affects the drop's response to the electric field. Deduct 3 points if any parameter cannot be adjusted, 2 points if adjustments don't immediately reflect in the simulation, and 2 points if parameter ranges are unrealistic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the visualization of the experimental setup correctly displayed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the webpage clearly shows two metal plates with correct height representation, with the lower plate properly set at height 0. Check if the oil drop is visibly positioned between the plates and its movement is smooth and visually traceable. Verify whether the electric field is visually indicated (e.g., with field lines or color gradients). Deduct 5 points if the metal plates are not clearly defined, 3 points if the relative positioning is incorrect, and 3 points if there's no visual indication of the electric field direction. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the experiment record storage and display functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code successfully stores multiple experiment records and displays them in a list format. Verify if each record captures all relevant experimental parameters (voltage, drop charge, initial height) and outcomes (terminal velocity, balance point). Assess whether the records remain available after page refresh using local storage. Deduct 3 points if record persistence isn't implemented, 3 points if the list display is cluttered or hard to read, and 3 points if records lack timestamps or unique identifiers. 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 extreme parameter inputs, browser compatibility issues, mobile responsiveness) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time data graphing of drop movement 2. Physics calculation formulas displayed alongside simulation 3. Comparison tool between experimental and theoretical values). 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 reset the experiment) 2. Function modules unrelated to the Millikan experiment (e.g., unrelated animations or calculators) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 3D effects that slow down the 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 engine/view/data management 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 for the experiment process. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual jitter during oil drop movement, and 5 points for hard-to-find parameter controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/moon-rotation-simulation-frontend-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 214,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Ensure the code you produce is executable for display. Write a frontend program that simulates the moon's rotation.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the moon rotation simulation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine if the code correctly implements orbital mechanics for the moon's rotation, including proper axis tilt (5.14°), accurate rotation period (27.3 days), and realistic lunar libration effect. Score 0 if the rotation is static or inaccurate, 5 if basic rotation is implemented but lacks precision in orbital mechanics, and 10 if the simulation is astronomically accurate.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the simulation include proper visual representation of the moon?",
+      "description": "Check if the moon is visually represented with accurate textures showing craters, maria, and highlands. The texture mapping should wrap correctly on a sphere with proper lighting conditions to show the moon phases. Deduct 5 points if the texture is low resolution or unrealistic, 3 points if the lighting model doesn't accurately show phases, and 2 points if the surface details are missing. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Earth-Moon system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the simulation includes the Earth and shows the correct spatial relationship between Earth and Moon (average distance ratio and size ratio). The simulation should show how the moon orbits the Earth while rotating on its axis. Deduct 5 points if the Earth is missing, 3 points if the distance/size proportions are dramatically wrong, and 2 points if the orbital mechanics aren't synchronized with rotation. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there an interactive user control system?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can control the simulation through features like zoom, rotation speed adjustment, time controls (pause/play/fast-forward), and camera angle changes. 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": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, performance throttling, texture loading failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time phase indicator with dates 2. Ability to view from different celestial perspectives 3. Information overlay about moon features when hovering). 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 camera controls doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to moon simulation (e.g., unrelated animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects that slow down the 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 rendering logic/physics calculation/user 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 there's no performance optimization for smooth animation. 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 starfield or space background that doesn't distract from the main simulation 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional font system for any displayed data or controls. Deduct 3 points for each visually distracting element, 5 points for poorly contrasting color combinations that hinder visibility, and 5 points for chaotic UI layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the rendering and animation smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains a consistent frame rate (60fps) without stuttering, even during user interactions. Check if lighting transitions are smooth when showing moon phases. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops, 3 points for jerky rotation or movement, and 5 points for sudden visual glitches during animations or transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/simulate-passenger-station-boarding-time.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1443,
+  "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 when possible. Please help me write a small program that simulates the walking process of passengers from arriving at a station to boarding a vehicle, and outputs the time passengers spend at the station.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the passenger arrival simulation properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements passenger arrival patterns (random, scheduled, or based on statistical distributions). Check if arrival rates vary by time of day and if the simulation handles peak/off-peak scenarios. Score 0 if arrival logic is missing, 5 if only basic constant arrival rate is implemented, and 10 if realistic arrival patterns with variability are fully modeled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the station navigation and passenger movement logic complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code models passenger movement through the station (entry, ticketing, security, waiting areas, platforms). Check if the model accounts for walking speeds, congestion effects, and path-finding algorithms. Deduct 5 points if spatial modeling is oversimplified, and 3 points if passenger behaviors like stopping at information boards are not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the program implement a comprehensive boarding process?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes queuing strategies, boarding priorities (e.g., elderly, passengers with special needs), and vehicle capacity constraints. Verify if the simulation handles scenarios like full vehicles or missed connections. Score 0 if boarding logic is missing, 5 if only basic boarding is implemented, and 10 if it includes realistic boarding behaviors including priority boarding and capacity management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the time tracking and reporting functionality comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the program correctly tracks and reports time metrics (total waiting time, time spent at different station areas, boarding time). Check if the statistics are properly aggregated and if the analysis provides meaningful insights (averages, percentiles, outliers). Deduct 5 points if only total time is reported without breakdowns, and 3 points if time precision is inadequate. 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 extremely high passenger volumes, zero passengers, service disruptions, etc.) and provide appropriate error handling. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle 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 simulation (e.g., 1. Visual real-time station heatmap 2. Predictive analytics for station crowding 3. What-if scenario testing). 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 time calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to passenger flow simulation (e.g., unnecessary weather simulation) 3. Overly complex algorithms that don't improve accuracy. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating passenger logic/station model/time management/reporting), unit test coverage, and parameter configuration flexibility. 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 simulation parameters cannot be easily modified. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the visualization (if any) meet professional standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether any visualization components follow good design principles: 1) Clear representation of passenger flow 2) Proper use of color to indicate congestion levels 3) Appropriate labeling and legends. Deduct 3 points for cluttered visuals, 5 points for misleading data representation, and 5 points for poorly scaled graphics. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the simulation output clear, informative and actionable?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the output data and reports provide meaningful insights: 1) Clear statistics on waiting times 2) Identification of bottlenecks in the passenger journey 3) Comparison of actual vs. expected transit times. Deduct 5 points for raw data without analysis, 3 points for missing visualization of key metrics, and 5 points for outputs that don't allow for decision-making improvements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-celestial-movement-frontend-code.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 251,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. Help me generate a frontend program code for a solar celestial movement.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system celestial body model correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements celestial bodies with proper orbital mechanics calculations. Check for correct representation of planets, moons, and the sun with proportional sizes and realistic textures. Score 0 if celestial bodies are missing, 5 if basic shapes exist but lack details, and 10 if the model includes accurate planetary characteristics (size ratios, textures, axial tilts).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are orbital paths and celestial movements scientifically accurate?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the orbital calculations follow Kepler's laws with proper elliptical paths and varying orbital velocities. Verify that planets rotate on their axes while orbiting the sun, and moons correctly orbit their planets. Deduct 5 points if orbits are perfectly circular (unrealistic), 3 points if orbital speeds are constant (not following Kepler's second law), and 2 points if axial rotations are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a time control system for the solar system simulation?",
+      "description": "Check for implementation of time controls like play/pause, speed adjustment (faster/slower), and time jumping capabilities. Ensure that relative orbital periods are maintained when speed is adjusted. Deduct 5 points if only play/pause exists without speed control, 3 points if the time scale is fixed, and 2 points if there's no visual indicator of the current time scale. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there an interactive camera/viewpoint control system?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can change perspectives (zoom in/out, pan, rotate view), switch focus between different celestial bodies, or choose preset viewpoints (e.g., from Earth, top-down view). Deduct 5 points if only basic zoom is implemented, 3 points if rotation controls are unintuitive, and 5 points if changing focus between planets isn't possible. 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 degradation on slower devices) and provide graceful fallbacks or adjustments. Code with strong robustness should adapt to different screen sizes, maintain consistent frame rates by adjusting detail levels, and handle WebGL/Canvas API failures. Give 10 points for excellent robustness, 5 points for average handling, and 0 points if these edge cases aren't addressed.",
+      "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 with shadows 2. Comet or asteroid simulation 3. Space events like solar flares or eclipses 4. Interactive information panels with astronomical data). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar rendering methods 2. Function modules unrelated to celestial movements (e.g., an unnecessary audio player) 3. Excessive visual effects that significantly impact performance (e.g., too many 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 physics calculations from rendering logic, reusable celestial body components), code organization patterns, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization strategies are implemented (e.g., object pooling, LOD). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional astronomical visualization standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional astronomical visualization principles: 1) Scientific color schemes for celestial bodies 2) Proper scale indicators or reference grid 3) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the main view. Deduct 3 points for each visually inaccurate celestial representation, 5 points for unrealistic space background (e.g., bright blue space), and 5 points for obtrusive UI elements that block important parts of the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation and interaction conform to astronomical visualization standards: 1) Consistent frame rate ≥30fps 2) Smooth transitions when changing viewpoints 3) Responsive controls with appropriate momentum/inertia effects for camera movement. Deduct 5 points for stuttering animations, 3 points for abrupt camera transitions, and 5 points for delayed response to user input. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-animation-html.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1188,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that any code you provide is executable for demonstration. Create an HTML animation demonstrating the operation of the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model astronomically accurate?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements accurate relative scaling of planetary sizes, orbital distances, and orbital periods. Check if the sun is properly centered and planets rotate at different speeds according to astronomical data. Score 0 if planets are randomly positioned, 5 if basic orbital mechanics are implemented but with inaccurate scaling, and 10 if the model closely resembles actual astronomical proportions (with acceptable artistic license).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the animation implement smooth planetary motion?",
+      "description": "Check if the animation uses requestAnimationFrame() or appropriate timing mechanisms rather than setTimeout/setInterval for smoother rendering. Assess if orbital motion is fluid (minimum 30fps) and whether the code implements proper circular/elliptical paths using mathematical functions (sine/cosine or elliptical equations). Deduct 5 points for jerky animations or frame drops, and 3 points if orbital paths are visibly polygonal rather than smooth curves. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are interactive features included to enhance the learning experience?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the presence and quality of interactive elements such as zoom controls, planet information on hover/click, ability to adjust simulation speed, or toggle orbital paths/labels. Deduct 5 points if no interactivity exists, 3 points if interactions lack visual feedback, and 5 points if interactions break the simulation. The full score is 10 points only if multiple well-implemented interactive features are present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the visualization include additional astronomical details?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes details such as planetary rotations, moon systems for relevant planets, asteroid belt representation, planetary textures/colors, or day/night cycles. Score 0 if only basic colored circles represent planets, 5 if some detailed elements are present but incomplete, and 10 if multiple astronomical details enhance the educational value of the animation.",
+      "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, etc.) and provide graceful degradation 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. Realistic lighting/shadow effects 2. Comet/special astronomical event simulations 3. Time progression display showing Earth days/years). 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 functions 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems that slow down the animation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core animation is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating astronomical calculations from rendering logic), code reusability (e.g., planet object factory pattern), and performance 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 no performance considerations are evident for complex animations. 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) Aesthetically pleasing space background that enhances visibility of planets 2) Proper contrast between planets, orbits and background 3) Professional typographic system for any labels or information (legible font size ≥ 14px, appropriate contrast). Deduct 3 points for each visual element with poor contrast, 5 points for color combinations that reduce clarity, and 5 points for cluttered information display. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation and any interactive elements respond appropriately: 1) Animation runs at consistent framerate without stuttering 2) Interactive elements respond within 100ms 3) Transitions between different states (if any) are smooth and visually pleasing. Deduct 5 points for performance bottlenecks that cause visible lag, 3 points for delayed response to user inputs, and 5 points for abrupt visual changes without proper transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-celestial-body-movement-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 296,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for demonstration. Write HTML code that simulates the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code correctly represents the relative positions, sizes, and orbits of the major celestial bodies (Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). Evaluate if orbital mechanics are simulated with reasonable accuracy (elliptical orbits, relative distances). Score 0 if fewer than 5 celestial bodies are implemented, 5 if basic circular orbits are present, and 10 if accurate elliptical orbits with proper inclinations are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the celestial body movement animations smooth and physically accurate?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the animation uses requestAnimationFrame or similar techniques for smooth rendering. Check if the orbital periods maintain proper relative timing (e.g., Earth's year vs. Mars' 1.88 Earth years). Verify if the rotation of planets on their axes is implemented. Deduct 5 points if animation is jerky (< 30fps), 3 points if orbital periods are randomly assigned rather than proportionally accurate, and 5 points if there's no planetary rotation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the visualization scalable and responsive?",
+      "description": "Test if the solar system visualization adapts to different screen sizes and device orientations. Verify if proper scaling is implemented (the real solar system has vast empty spaces that need smart scaling). Check if a responsive design approach is used with relative units or viewport units. Deduct 5 points if the visualization breaks on mobile screens, 3 points if planets become too small to see on certain devices, and 5 points if no scaling mechanism exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are interactive elements implemented to enhance user experience?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code includes user controls like zoom, pause/play, speed adjustment, or ability to focus on specific planets. Check if tooltips or information panels are available when hovering/clicking on celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction (zoom, pause/play, speed control), and award full points only if at least 3 different meaningful interactions are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resize, browser compatibility issues, varying performance capabilities). Check for presence of error handling, graceful degradation, and performance optimizations. 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 textures for celestial bodies 2. Comet or asteroid belt visualization 3. Day/night cycle on Earth 4. Moon phases or satellite systems for planets). 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. Unnecessary elements unrelated to celestial mechanics (e.g., irrelevant UI elements) 3. Heavy visual effects that severely 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 rendering logic/physics calculations/user interface), code reusability (e.g., using a single celestial body class for all planets), and proper variable/function naming. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (similar code blocks repeated for each planet); deduct 5 points if hardcoded magic numbers are used instead of constants or configuration objects. 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 scheme with appropriate contrast between space and celestial bodies 2) Proper proportional representation (while acknowledging artistic license for visibility) 3) Clean interface elements that don't obstruct the visualization. Deduct 3 points for each visual element with poor contrast, 5 points for unrealistic or jarring colors that don't mimic actual celestial bodies, and 5 points for cluttered controls. 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) Smooth transitions when changing view or focus 2) Intuitive controls that respond within 100ms 3) Clear visual feedback when interacting with celestial bodies. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for stuttering animations during interactions, and 5 points for disorienting camera movements or transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-celestial-body-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 285,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for display. Frontend program simulating the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model physically accurate?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements proper orbital mechanics with gravitational interactions between celestial bodies. Check if Kepler's laws are correctly implemented with proper mathematical formulas for elliptical orbits. Score 0 if planetary orbits are just simple circles, 5 if basic elliptical orbits are implemented but without accurate physical parameters, and 10 if the simulation includes realistic orbital parameters, proper scaling, and accurate relative motion.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are all major celestial bodies of the solar system included?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the completeness of the solar system representation. The minimum should include the Sun, eight planets, and Earth's moon with correct relative sizes and orbital characteristics. Deduct 1 point for each missing major body (up to 5 points). Deduct 3 points if dwarf planets like Pluto or major asteroid belts are missing. Give full points if the simulation includes additional elements like major moons of other planets or asteroid belts with proper representation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the rendering engine optimized for smooth animation?",
+      "description": "Check whether the animation runs at a consistent frame rate (minimum 30 FPS) without stuttering even when all planets and celestial bodies are in view. Evaluate if the code uses requestAnimationFrame or similar optimization techniques rather than simple setInterval. Deduct 5 points if the animation stutters on standard hardware, and 3 points if the code doesn't implement proper time-stepping for simulation. Give full points only if the rendering maintains smooth performance with proper animation loops and timing controls.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the visualization provide interactive features?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the solar system can be manipulated by users through features such as zoom in/out, rotation of the viewing angle, focus tracking on specific planets, or time acceleration controls. Score 3 points for basic camera controls, 3 points for time control (speeding up/slowing down/pausing the simulation), and 4 points for object selection and information display. Deduct all points if no interactivity is implemented.",
+      "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, or unexpected user interactions) 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. Realistic lighting effects and shadows 2. Spacecraft or satellite trajectories 3. Historical celestial events 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 rendering functions (e.g., multiple orbit calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system simulation (e.g., a built-in unrelated game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects that slow down the 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 engine/rendering/user interface layers), code structure, and performance 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 there is no separation between computation 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 visualization follows modern design principles: 1) Appropriate color scheme for space visualization (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Proper scaling and proportional representation (or clear indication that scaling is artistic) 3) Professional labeling system for celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points for each visual inaccuracy in planetary representation, 5 points for poor color choices that make objects hard to distinguish, and 5 points for confusing or missing labels. 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) Response to user input within 100ms 2) Smooth transitions when changing views or focus 3) Clear visual feedback for user actions. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without visual feedback, 3 points for jerky transitions between views, and 5 points for confusing navigation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-celestial-movement-frontend-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 344,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. I am writing a frontend program that simulates the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model correctly implemented with accurate celestial mechanics?",
+      "description": "Verify whether the code accurately implements orbital mechanics (Kepler's laws), gravitational interactions (Newton's law), and proper scaling of planetary sizes and distances. Check if planets follow elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus. Score 0 if basic movement is missing, 5 if only circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if the model includes accurate elliptical orbits with proper orbital parameters (eccentricity, semi-major axis, inclination).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the celestial bodies rendered with appropriate visual fidelity?",
+      "description": "Examine whether planets, moons, and the Sun are represented with texture mapping, appropriate lighting effects (including shadows), and surface details. Check if the rendering includes atmosphere effects where applicable. Deduct 3 points if textures are missing, 2 points if lighting is unrealistic, and 3 points if relative sizes are grossly inaccurate. Give 10 points for photorealistic rendering with detailed textures and correct proportions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the simulation interactive with proper camera controls?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can zoom in/out, rotate the view, focus on specific planets, and adjust simulation speed. Check if the camera transition animations are smooth when switching focus between celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if zooming is jerky, 3 points if rotation controls are unintuitive, and 4 points if the system lacks a way to focus on specific objects. Full score requires seamless transitions and intuitive controls.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the simulation include accurate time-based celestial events?",
+      "description": "Check if the code simulates astronomical events like eclipses, planetary conjunctions, and seasonal variations based on axial tilts. Verify if time controls allow for accelerating/decelerating simulation speed to observe these phenomena. Deduct 5 points if no time-based events are implemented, 3 points if events occur but with inaccurate timing. Award full points for accurately timed events with educational explanations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases such as extreme zoom levels, rapid simulation speeds, and browser resizing. Check for appropriate frame rate management to prevent performance issues on different devices. Deduct 3 points for each unhandled edge case (zooming too far in/out, performance degradation at high speeds). Give 10 points if the simulation maintains stability across various conditions and device capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check for creative features that enhance the educational or visual experience (e.g., 1. Trajectory visualization with orbital paths 2. Interactive information panels with real astronomical data 3. Realistic star field background with actual constellations). Add 3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check for unnecessary elements: 1. Redundant animation systems that could be consolidated 2. Excessive UI controls that clutter the interface 3. Over-detailed calculations that don't contribute to visual accuracy or educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core simulation performance is compromised by unnecessary features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review the code architecture (separation of physics engine, rendering system, and UI controls), optimization techniques for smooth animation (requestAnimationFrame usage, object pooling), and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points for global variable abuse, 5 points for poor performance optimization (no frame limiting or object reuse), and 5 points for duplicated rendering logic. The full score requires clean architecture with clear separation of concerns.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Clean control panel layout with logical grouping 2) Proper contrast between space background and interface elements 3) Consistent iconography and typography (body font size ≥ 14px, sufficient contrast with background). Deduct 3 points for cluttered controls, 5 points for poor readability against the space background, and 5 points for inconsistent UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions feel natural and responsive: 1) Camera movements respond within 50ms of input 2) Celestial body selection has clear visual feedback 3) Time control adjustments show immediate effect on simulation speed. Deduct 5 points for laggy camera movement, 3 points for jerky planet rotation/revolution, and 5 points for simulation stuttering when changing parameters. The full score requires consistent 60fps animation with smooth transitions between different views and speeds.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}