@getollie/cli 0.0.1

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 254,
+  "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. Write a frontend program that simulates the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Review whether the code correctly implements gravitational physics with Newton's law of universal gravitation (F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²) or an appropriate approximation. Check if orbital mechanics are applied with proper initial velocities to maintain stable orbits. Score 0 if planets move in arbitrary paths, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if elliptical orbits with proper Keplerian physics are modeled.",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements gravitational physics with Newton's law of universal gravitation (F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²) or an appropriate approximation. Check if orbital mechanics are applied with proper initial velocities to maintain stable orbits. Score 0 if planets move in arbitrary paths, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if elliptical orbits with proper Keplerian physics are modeled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Evaluate the completeness of the simulation: At minimum, the Sun, terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) should be present. Deduct 1 point for each missing major planet. Add 2 points if the simulation includes the Earth's moon, 2 points for other significant moons (e.g., Jupiter's Galilean moons), and 1 point for appropriate asteroid belt representation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "description": "Evaluate the completeness of the simulation: At minimum, the Sun, terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) should be present. Deduct 1 point for each missing major planet. Add 2 points if the simulation includes the Earth's moon, 2 points for other significant moons (e.g., Jupiter's Galilean moons), and 1 point for appropriate asteroid belt representation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Check whether the visualization maintains proportional relationships (size of planets, orbital distances) or provides a clear scaling mechanism if using non-linear scaling. Evaluate if planets are visually distinguishable with appropriate textures/colors. Deduct 5 points if planetary sizes are grossly disproportionate without explanation, 3 points if orbital distances are misleading, and 2 points if planets lack visual differentiation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "description": "Check whether the visualization maintains proportional relationships (size of planets, orbital distances) or provides a clear scaling mechanism if using non-linear scaling. Evaluate if planets are visually distinguishable with appropriate textures/colors. Deduct 5 points if planetary sizes are grossly disproportionate without explanation, 3 points if orbital distances are misleading, and 2 points if planets lack visual differentiation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Assess whether the code implements user interaction controls such as zoom in/out, rotation of view angle, speed control, and the ability to focus on specific celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if zooming is missing, 3 points if rotation control is absent, 2 points if simulation speed cannot be adjusted, and 2 points if there is no way to track/focus on specific planets. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements user interaction controls such as zoom in/out, rotation of view angle, speed control, and the ability to focus on specific celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if zooming is missing, 3 points if rotation control is absent, 2 points if simulation speed cannot be adjusted, and 2 points if there is no way to track/focus on specific planets. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, rendering performance issues, or user interaction edge cases) and provide graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should maintain stable frame rates even with many bodies, giving 10 points. If performance degrades significantly with increased complexity, give 5 points, and if the simulation breaks under normal usage, give 0 points.",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, rendering performance issues, or user interaction edge cases) and provide graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should maintain stable frame rates even with many bodies, giving 10 points. If performance degrades significantly with increased complexity, give 5 points, and if the simulation breaks under normal usage, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Planetary rotation and axial tilt 3. Time-based events like comets or meteor showers 4. Educational information display about selected celestial bodies). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Planetary rotation and axial tilt 3. Time-based events like comets or meteor showers 4. Educational information display about selected celestial bodies). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant calculations that could be optimized (e.g., recalculating constants each frame) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Excessive visual effects that affect performance without adding value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant calculations that could be optimized (e.g., recalculating constants each frame) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Excessive visual effects that affect performance without adding value. 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": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculation/rendering/user interaction layers), appropriate use of requestAnimationFrame, and optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization is implemented for the animation loop. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculation/rendering/user interaction layers), appropriate use of requestAnimationFrame, and optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization is implemented for the animation loop. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows modern design principles: 1) Appropriate color scheme for space environment (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the visualization 3) Informative labels and overlays that enhance understanding without cluttering the view. Deduct 3 points for each visual element that creates confusion, 5 points for poor color contrast making planets hard to see, and 5 points for overlapping/unreadable UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows modern design principles: 1) Appropriate color scheme for space environment (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the visualization 3) Informative labels and overlays that enhance understanding without cluttering the view. Deduct 3 points for each visual element that creates confusion, 5 points for poor color contrast making planets hard to see, and 5 points for overlapping/unreadable UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Judge whether the animation and interactive elements conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Stable framerate of at least 30fps 2) Smooth camera transitions when changing focus 3) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if animation stutters regularly, 3 points for jarring camera movements when switching views, and 5 points if interactive elements have noticeable input lag. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation and interactive elements conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Stable framerate of at least 30fps 2) Smooth camera transitions when changing focus 3) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if animation stutters regularly, 3 points for jarring camera movements when switching views, and 5 points if interactive elements have noticeable input lag. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 367,
+  "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 display. Create a front-end model of the solar system in motion.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is a complete 3D solar system model implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately models the sun, all eight planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), and possibly other celestial bodies like the moon, asteroid belt, or dwarf planets. Check if the planets have appropriate relative sizes, colors, and textures. Score 0 if only basic shapes are used, 5 if planets have distinct appearances but lack detail, and 10 if a realistic representation with textures and distinctive features is provided.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the orbital motion correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the orbital mechanics follow realistic patterns with proper elliptical orbits, different speeds based on distance from the sun (Kepler's laws), and correct orbital inclinations. Deduct 5 points if orbits are perfect circles without inclination, 3 points if orbital speeds don't follow astronomical principles, and 2 points if planetary rotations (day/night cycles) are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are lighting effects and shadows properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the sun acts as a light source that correctly illuminates planets based on their position, creating realistic day/night cycles and shadows. Score 0 if there's no lighting, 5 if basic lighting exists but without shadows or proper reflections, and 10 if the implementation includes dynamic lighting, shadows, and possibly atmospheric effects like Earth's blue halo or Venus's cloud coverage.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there interactivity and user control?",
+      "description": "Assess whether users can interact with the solar system model through features like zooming, rotating the view, focusing on specific planets, adjusting simulation speed, or accessing information about celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction (zoom, pan, focus selection), and give full 10 points if advanced controls like time manipulation and educational overlays are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, device orientation changes, performance throttling on weaker devices, etc.) and provide fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should adapt to different screen sizes and maintain performance through level-of-detail adjustments. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling and graceful degradation, 5 points for basic responsive behavior, and 0 points if the visualization breaks easily.",
+      "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 asteroid belt simulation 2. Comet trajectories 3. Space missions visualization 4. Educational information panels 5. Realistic star background). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant calculations that could be optimized (e.g., recalculating constants for each frame) 2. Unnecessary visual elements that detract from the main solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Excessive effects that impact performance without adding educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core solar system visualization is compromised by unnecessary features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of astronomical calculations, rendering logic, and user interface), efficient use of rendering techniques (WebGL/Three.js optimization), and appropriate design patterns. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 3 points if inefficient rendering approaches are used; deduct 2 points if the animation loop is poorly implemented causing performance issues. 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 astronomical visualization principles: 1) Scientific color accuracy for celestial bodies 2) Clear visual hierarchy with proper scale indicators 3) Unobtrusive UI controls that don't interfere with the visualization. Deduct 3 points for inaccurate planet colors, 4 points for poor visual proportion between celestial bodies, and 3 points for cluttered interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation performance maintains a consistent frame rate (ideally 60fps): 1) Smooth orbital motion without stuttering 2) Responsive camera controls with inertia 3) Proper loading strategies for textures and models. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops during normal use, 3 points for jerky transitions when changing focus between planets, and 2 points for slow initial loading without progress indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 392,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the generated code executable for display. Write a frontend program that simulates the motion of planets in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements the astronomical model with accurate relative sizes, distances, and orbital paths of planets. Check if planetary orbits follow Kepler's laws with proper elliptical paths and orbital periods. Score 0 if planets are randomly placed, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if accurate elliptical orbits with correct astronomical proportions are used.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are planetary movement physics properly simulated?",
+      "description": "Check whether the simulation implements proper physics (gravitational forces between bodies, orbital velocity variations at different points in orbit). Assess if planets move faster when closer to the Sun (perihelion) and slower when farther (aphelion). Deduct 5 points if planets move at constant speeds in perfect circles, and 3 points if axial tilts are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the visualization complete with all solar system components?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the completeness of the visualization: all 8 planets, the Sun, potentially moons, asteroid belts, and dwarf planets. Check for accurate textures/colors for celestial bodies and proper lighting/shadow effects. Deduct 2 points for each missing major planet, 3 points for unrealistic textures, and 5 points if the Sun doesn't serve as a light source. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the interactive features and controls well-implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the implementation of user controls such as zoom in/out, rotation, time acceleration/deceleration, and planet information display. Check for smooth camera transitions and the ability to focus on specific planets. Deduct 3 points if zoom functionality is missing, 3 points if time controls are absent, and 4 points if there's no way to view individual planets. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resizing, performance throttling on different devices, WebGL context loss, 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. Realistic star background with actual constellations 2. Day/night cycle visualization on planets 3. Educational overlays with astronomical facts). 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 simulation 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without adding educational value. 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 simulation/rendering/user interaction layers), performance optimization techniques, and resource management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the rendering loop is inefficient; deduct 5 points if texture/model resources are not properly managed. 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) Balanced visual layout with the Sun and planets 2) Proper scale representation or clear indicators for actual distances 3) Clean, unobtrusive UI controls that don't distract from the simulation. Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 5 points for unrealistic or garish planet textures, and 5 points for poor contrast between UI and simulation. 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) Consistent frame rate (minimum 30fps) 2) Smooth camera transitions when focusing on different planets 3) Proper animation timing for orbital movements. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for delayed response to user input, and 5 points for abrupt camera movements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-orbital-mechanics-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 219,
+  "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 purposes. Create a frontend program that showcases the orbital mechanics of the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system orbital mechanics accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements planetary orbital mechanics using physics formulas (Kepler's laws, gravitational forces). Check if orbital parameters include semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination, and orbital period calculations. Verify that planetary positions are computed using real astronomical data rather than simple circular motion. Score 0 if only basic circular rotation is implemented, 5 if elliptical orbits are included but without proper physics, and 10 if accurate orbital mechanics with realistic parameters are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are all major celestial bodies of the solar system included with proper scaling?",
+      "description": "Check whether the visualization includes all 8 planets, major moons (at least Earth's Moon, Jupiter's Galilean moons), asteroid belt, and the Sun with appropriate relative scaling. Evaluate if the code implements both realistic scale options and compressed scale for better visualization. Deduct 3 points for each missing major celestial body, 5 points if no scaling options are provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is real-time orbital simulation with time control implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides real-time orbital simulation with adjustable time speed (1x, 10x, 100x, 1000x speeds). Check if the code includes play/pause controls, date/time display, and the ability to jump to specific dates. Verify that orbital positions remain mathematically accurate across different time speeds. Deduct 5 points if time controls are missing, 3 points if accuracy degrades at high speeds. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is comprehensive interactive exploration functionality provided?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes interactive features such as: camera controls (zoom, pan, rotate), clickable celestial bodies with information panels, orbital path visualization toggles, and follow-camera mode for selected objects. Evaluate if the interface provides educational information (orbital period, distance, composition) for each celestial body. Deduct 5 points if basic camera controls are missing, 3 points if no information panels are provided. Give 10 points if fully interactive with educational content.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid date inputs, extreme time speeds, browser performance limitations, and WebGL compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases and provide appropriate user feedback, 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. Spacecraft trajectory planning and visualization 2. Historical astronomical events simulation 3. Exoplanet comparison mode 4. VR/AR compatibility 5. Real-time data integration from NASA APIs). 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 control systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system visualization (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., unnecessary particle systems, overly complex shaders). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core orbital mechanics 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 layers), proper use of design patterns, and code organization. Check for proper resource management (texture loading, memory cleanup), performance optimization (LOD systems, culling), and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no design patterns are used; deduct 5 points if frame rate drops below 30fps on standard hardware; deduct 5 points if no build process is provided. 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 UI/UX principles: 1) Space-themed color palette with high contrast for readability 2) Proper layout spacing with clear information hierarchy 3) Professional typography system with readable fonts against dark backgrounds 4) Intuitive iconography and controls. Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed UI element, 5 points for poor color contrast affecting usability, and 5 points for cluttered interface layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the 3D rendering performance smooth and visually appealing?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the 3D visualization maintains smooth performance: 1) Consistent 60fps frame rate during normal operation 2) Smooth camera transitions and object animations 3) High-quality textures and lighting effects 4) Proper depth perception and spatial orientation cues. Deduct 5 points for each noticeable frame rate drop, 3 points for choppy animations, and 5 points for poor visual quality that hampers the educational experience. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 307,
+  "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. Write a frontend system that simulates the orbital movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model scientifically accurate?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the celestial body models (Sun, planets, major moons) are proportionally sized and correctly positioned. Check if orbital parameters (semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination) match astronomical data. Score 0 if planets are randomly placed, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if Keplerian elliptical orbits with proper eccentricity are accurately modeled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the orbital movement physics correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of gravitational physics. Verify if Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation are properly applied with F=G(m₁m₂/r²). Check for time-scaling controls to observe both fast and slow movements. Deduct 5 points if gravitational interactions between planets are missing, and 3 points if orbital velocity calculations are incorrect. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the visualization rendering optimized for performance?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the rendering uses appropriate technology (Canvas, WebGL, SVG) based on the complexity. Check if the code implements optimization techniques such as frustum culling, level-of-detail (LOD), or request animation frame throttling. Deduct 5 points if the frame rate drops below 30 FPS with all planets visible, and 3 points if there's no performance optimization for mobile devices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the system provide interactive camera controls and viewpoints?",
+      "description": "Assess the implementation of camera controls (pan, zoom, rotate) and predefined viewpoints (top-down, ecliptic plane, planet-centric). Check if the perspective change is smooth with proper easing functions. Deduct 5 points if camera controls are limited to 2D only, and 3 points if there are no preset viewpoints. 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, WebGL context loss, memory constraints, 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. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Comet or asteroid visualization with proper trajectories 3. Time control to view historical/future planetary alignments). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant calculations for static orbital parameters 2. Excessive detail in models that impacts performance (e.g., high-poly models for distant objects) 3. Unnecessary visual effects that don't contribute to astronomical understanding. 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/UI 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 with appropriate astronomical visual cues 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional font system for astronomical data display (readable against space background). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for inaccurate color representation of celestial bodies, and 5 points for chaotic information architecture. 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 time ≤ 100ms for interactive controls 2) Smooth transitions when changing between celestial bodies 3) Clear visual indicators for selected objects and available interactions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for stuttering animations during planet transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation between planetary views. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-orbital-trajectories-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 925,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Take care to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. Create a cool webpage that simulates the orbital trajectories of the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the orbital mechanics of the solar system bodies (planets, moons, etc.) with proper scaling, distances, and orbital periods. Score 0 if planets don't follow orbital paths, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented but without accurate relative sizes/distances, and 10 if the model includes elliptical orbits with proper orbital parameters (eccentricity, inclination, etc.).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are celestial body physics and rendering properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the simulation includes proper physics for celestial body motion (gravity effects, orbital velocity variations at different distances from the Sun) and whether the rendering includes details like rotation, axial tilt, and surface texturing of planets. Deduct 5 points if physics calculations are simplified to the point of inaccuracy, and 3 points if planetary rendering lacks important visual details. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the visualization include interactive camera controls?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation allows users to explore the solar system from different perspectives through zooming, panning, and rotating the view. Look for smooth transitions between viewpoints, the ability to focus on specific planets, and intuitive control mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if camera controls are limited to basic zooming only, and 3 points if transitions are jerky or unnatural. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the animation loop efficiently implemented with proper timing control?",
+      "description": "Check whether the animation uses requestAnimationFrame for smooth rendering, implements proper time scaling controls (speed up/slow down/pause), and maintains consistent performance without FPS drops. Deduct 5 points if the animation uses setTimeout/setInterval instead of requestAnimationFrame, 3 points if there's no time control mechanism, and 5 points if the animation visibly stutters on standard hardware. 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, different screen resolutions, performance limitations, etc.) and provide fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lens flare for the sun 2. Asteroid belt visualization 3. Space mission trajectories overlay 4. Realistic star background 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 implementation of similar rendering techniques (e.g., multiple shadow calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to space visualization (e.g., unnecessary UI widgets) 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 physics engine/rendering/UI layers), proper use of design patterns, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global namespace pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimizations are implemented (such as object pooling for particles or level-of-detail 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 visualization principles: 1) Scientific color palette for planetary bodies 2) Clear visual hierarchy between UI controls and the simulation 3) Proper information density in planetary labels and data overlays. Deduct 3 points for each illegible label, 5 points for visually confusing planetary textures, and 5 points for cluttered UI elements that obscure the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Planet selection response ≤ 100ms 2) Camera transition animations between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback when interacting with UI elements or celestial bodies. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring camera movements during transitions, and 5 points if critical information like orbital paths is difficult to perceive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 455,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Write a front-end program that simulates the celestial bodies' movement in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the solar system with correct relative positions, sizes, and orbital paths of celestial bodies. Score 0 if the model is completely inaccurate, 5 if basic positioning is implemented but with significant inaccuracies, and 10 if the model closely resembles the actual solar system with proper scale and positioning.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the orbital movement physics correctly simulated?",
+      "description": "Check whether the celestial bodies follow accurate orbital mechanics (elliptical orbits, Kepler's laws). Evaluate if proper physics calculations are used for gravity, velocity, and acceleration. Award 10 points for physically accurate simulation with proper mathematical models, 5 points for basic circular orbits without proper physics, and 0 points if movements are random or physically impossible.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are celestial body rotations and revolutions properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether planets both rotate on their axes and revolve around the Sun at appropriate speeds relative to each other. Award 10 points if both rotation and revolution are implemented with correct relative speeds, 5 points if only one type of movement is correctly implemented, and 0 points if neither is properly shown.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the visualization quality of celestial bodies high-fidelity?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the visual representation of planets and other celestial bodies. Check for texture mapping, lighting effects, and distinctive features of each planet. Award 10 points for high-quality 3D representations with textures and lighting, 5 points for basic 3D or good 2D representations, and 3 points for simple colored spheres.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, performance throttling on different devices, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Time controls to speed up/slow down simulation 2. Camera controls to view from different perspectives 3. Information panels for celestial bodies 4. Orbit visualization options). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple camera control systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems or shader effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core 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 layers), code organization, and optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if rendering optimization techniques are not implemented. 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, unobtrusive UI that doesn't detract from the simulation 2) Proper layout spacing for any controls 3) Professional font system and information display. Deduct 3 points for each poorly implemented UI element, 5 points for cluttered interfaces that obscure the simulation, and 5 points for illegible or poorly positioned text. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and performance optimized?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation runs at a consistent frame rate without stuttering: 1) Maintains 60fps on standard hardware 2) Uses appropriate techniques like requestAnimationFrame 3) Implements performance optimizations like object pooling or level-of-detail rendering. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops, 3 points for inefficient rendering techniques, and 5 points for excessive CPU/GPU usage causing device heating. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/three-body-orbital-trajectory-visualization.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1129,
+  "question": "You are a coding 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 visualization program for the three-body orbital trajectory using HTML.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the three-body physics simulation accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements Newton's gravitational equations and numerical integration methods (such as Runge-Kutta or Verlet integration) for three-body dynamics. Check if gravitational forces between all three bodies are calculated with proper vector mathematics and if the simulation maintains energy conservation principles. Score 0 if basic physics is wrong, 5 if only simplified gravity is implemented, and 10 if accurate three-body dynamics with proper numerical methods are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the orbital trajectory visualization effectively rendered?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization uses appropriate HTML5 Canvas or SVG to render smooth orbital paths with historical trajectory trails. Check if the rendering includes proper scaling, coordinate transformation, and viewport management to display the complex orbital patterns clearly. Deduct 5 points if trajectories are choppy or discontinuous, 3 points if scaling is inappropriate making orbits hard to observe. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are interactive controls and real-time parameter adjustment provided?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes interactive controls for adjusting simulation parameters such as initial velocities, masses, time step, and simulation speed. Evaluate if users can pause/resume, reset, or modify the system in real-time. Deduct 5 points if controls are unresponsive or cause simulation instability, 3 points if parameter ranges are not properly bounded. Give 10 points if comprehensive interactive controls are smoothly implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the animation performance optimized and frame rate stable?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the animation loop uses requestAnimationFrame for smooth rendering and maintains consistent frame rates (ideally 60fps). Check if the code implements proper performance optimization techniques such as object pooling, efficient collision detection, and avoiding unnecessary DOM manipulations. Deduct 5 points if frame rate drops below 30fps during normal operation, 3 points if animation stutters during parameter changes. 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 values, numerical instabilities, browser compatibility issues, and user input errors) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should prevent simulation explosion and handle edge cases gracefully, 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 visualization experience (e.g., 1. Multiple preset famous three-body configurations like Figure-8 or Lagrange points 2. Data export functionality for trajectory coordinates 3. Comparative view showing energy/momentum conservation graphs 4. Poincaré section analysis visualization). 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 physics calculations (e.g., multiple integration methods running simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to orbital simulation (e.g., built-in games or unrelated widgets) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex particle systems or heavy animations). 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/renderer/UI components), code organization with proper separation of concerns, and maintainable structure. Deduct 5 points if global variables pollute the namespace or no design patterns are used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if mathematical calculations are not properly encapsulated. 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 visualization principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme with good contrast for celestial bodies (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear control panels (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography for labels and values (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color choices that hinder visibility, and 5 points for chaotic interface layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactive elements conform to user experience standards: 1) Control response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions when changing parameters with duration between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for all user interactions 4) Intuitive zoom and pan controls for viewing different scales. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive control, 3 points for jarring transitions during parameter changes, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}