@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/three-body-problem-motion-simulation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 391,
+  "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 when possible. Write frontend code that displays the three-body problem in motion.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the three-body problem accurately modeled mathematically?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements the correct differential equations that govern the three-body problem (typically using Newton's laws of gravitation). Check if the gravitational constant is properly applied, masses are configurable, and the force calculations are accurate. Score 0 if the mathematical model is incorrect, 5 if it's simplified but functional, and 10 if it accurately implements the complete n-body equations with proper vector mathematics.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is a suitable numerical integration method implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the numerical integration technique used (e.g., Euler, Runge-Kutta, Verlet, etc.). The three-body problem requires stable integration to prevent numerical errors from accumulating. Deduct 5 points for using simple Euler method without error compensation, 3 points if the time step isn't adaptive based on velocity/acceleration. Give 10 points for implementing a high-order method like RK4 or velocity Verlet with appropriate step size control.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the visualization rendering appropriate and accurate?",
+      "description": "Check if the visualization properly maps the physical simulation to the screen space, with appropriate scaling and coordinate transformation. Verify that the trajectories accurately reflect the computed positions, with options to display paths/trails. Deduct 5 points if the visualization doesn't maintain proper aspect ratios or if the scaling is inappropriate for viewing the entire system. Give 10 points for a visualization that clearly shows the complex orbital patterns with proper perspective handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are interactive controls and configurations provided?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the implementation allows users to configure key parameters (masses, initial positions/velocities, simulation speed) and offers interactive controls (zoom, pan, pause/resume, reset). Deduct 3 points for each missing essential control, and 2 points if parameter boundaries aren't enforced. Give 10 points for a full suite of intuitive controls with preset configurations for interesting three-body scenarios (like figure-eight or specific Lagrangian point demonstrations).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases such as bodies getting too close (causing numerical instability), very different mass scales, or extreme velocities. Check for overflow protection and error handling. Code with strong robustness should detect and manage these situations with appropriate warnings. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling and stability measures, 5 points if basic protections exist but edge cases can still crash the simulation, and 0 points if no protections are implemented.",
+      "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 energy conservation tracking 2. Chaos indicator visualizations 3. Reference frames switching 4. Time-reversibility demonstration). 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 physics calculations that could be optimized 2. Function modules unrelated to the three-body problem 3. Fancy visual effects that significantly impact performance without adding to understanding. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is slowed down by unnecessary code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of physics engine from rendering logic), code organization, and potential for reuse or extension. Deduct 5 points if global state is overused; deduct 5 points if the code is difficult to extend to n-body problems; deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between computation and visualization concerns. 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) Clear visual distinction between bodies (size/color representing mass) 2) Proper use of contrast for trajectories 3) Clean interface elements that don't obstruct the simulation view. Deduct 3 points for cluttered displays, 5 points for poor color choices that make trajectories hard to follow, and 5 points for controls that interfere with viewing the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the animation smooth and performant?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains consistent frame rates even during complex orbital interactions: 1) Consistent 30+ FPS during normal operation 2) Efficient canvas/WebGL usage for rendering 3) Background computation handled with web workers if intensive. Deduct 5 points if the simulation noticeably lags during normal use, 3 points if there's no frame limiting to prevent resource overuse, and 5 points if the browser becomes unresponsive during certain configurations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/webpage-orbital-patterns-celestial-bodies-solar-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 247,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for display. Help me create a webpage that shows the orbital patterns of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the solar system model scientifically accurate?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately represents celestial bodies with correct relative sizes, orbital distances, and orbital periods according to astronomical data. Check if planets follow Kepler's laws of planetary motion with proper elliptical orbits and orbital inclinations. Score 0 if planets are randomly positioned, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if elliptical orbits with proper physics parameters are included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are all major celestial bodies of the solar system represented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes all eight planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), the Sun at the center, and optionally dwarf planets, moons, and asteroid belts. Deduct 1 point for each missing major planet, 3 points if the Sun isn't centralized correctly, and 2 points if Earth's moon is missing. Award bonus points for including accurate representations of moons for other planets or asteroid belts.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the orbital visualization interactive and dynamic?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the orbital patterns are animated to show planetary movement with correct relative speeds. Check for interactive features such as zoom in/out, rotation of view angle, time controls (speed up/slow down/pause), and ability to focus on specific celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if orbits are static, 3 points if user interaction is missing, and 5 points if planetary motion doesn't reflect relative orbital periods.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there educational information about the celestial bodies?",
+      "description": "Check if the visualization provides educational value through tooltips, information panels, or labels showing details about each planet (e.g., diameter, mass, distance from sun, orbital period, composition). Deduct 5 points if no information is provided, 3 points if information is inaccurate, and 2 points if information is difficult to access or read while viewing the simulation.",
+      "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, touch vs. mouse input) 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. Trajectory tracking visualization 3. Toggle between 2D and 3D views 4. Simulation of historical astronomical events). 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 zoom controls) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system visualization (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 astronomical data/rendering/interaction logic), use of appropriate libraries (Three.js, D3.js, etc.), and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimizations are implemented 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) Harmonious color scheme that represents space and celestial bodies accurately 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional font system that ensures readability against the space background. Deduct 3 points for each visually cluttered element, 5 points for inaccurate celestial body representations, and 5 points for poor contrast making text unreadable. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the orbital animations and user interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Animation runs at minimum 30fps without stuttering 2) Camera transitions are smooth when changing focus between planets 3) UI controls are responsive with clear visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for choppy animations, 3 points for abrupt camera movements, and 5 points for laggy UI responses. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/electrical-plug-phone-charger-portable-speaker-icon.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 116,
+  "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 display.\nPlease help me implement the following requirements using SVG code: create a black and white icon featuring an electrical plug connected to a phone charger, along with a portable speaker with a cord.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the electrical plug accurately depicted in SVG?",
+      "description": "Check if the plug has the correct proportions, prongs, and structural elements typical of an electrical plug. The SVG should use appropriate path elements with precise coordinates. Score 0 if the plug is missing, 5 if basic shape is present but inaccurate, and 10 if the plug is detailed and recognizable.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the phone charger component properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the charger is correctly connected to the plug and has appropriate details (adapter body, cable connection points). The SVG implementation should use proper grouping (<g> elements) for related components. Deduct 5 points if the charger lacks distinctive features, 3 points if connection to the plug is unclear. Give 10 points for a well-detailed, recognizable charger.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the portable speaker accurately visualized?",
+      "description": "Verify if the speaker has recognizable features (speaker grill, volume controls, etc.) and maintains proper proportions. The SVG paths should use appropriate curves and lines to create a realistic speaker shape. Score 0 if the speaker is missing, 5 if only basic outline is present, and 10 if the speaker is detailed and identifiable.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the connecting cord between components properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the cord connecting the charger and speaker is implemented with smooth curves using appropriate path commands (like bezier curves). The cord should have consistent thickness and natural bending. Deduct 5 points if the cord uses only straight lines, 3 points if the connections to devices are imprecise. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG code is properly structured with viewBox attribute, appropriate dimensions, and organized elements. Check if the code handles scaling appropriately and maintains aspect ratio. Code with strong robustness should use relative units rather than absolute pixel values. Give 10 points for robust implementation, 5 points for average implementation with minor issues, and 0 points for poor implementation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the SVG includes additional relevant features (e.g., 1. Animation of power flowing through cord 2. Interactive elements that respond to mouse events 3. Creative use of gradients or patterns to enhance visual appeal). 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 path definitions or duplicate elements 2. Elements unrelated to the requested icon components 3. Excessive detail that complicates the SVG without adding clarity. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core design is obscured by redundant elements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review the SVG structure including proper naming of elements, use of groups for logical organization, and optimization techniques (path simplification, appropriate decimal precision). Deduct 5 points if elements lack meaningful ids or classes; deduct 5 points if the code is unnecessarily verbose or unoptimized; deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for accessibility (missing title/desc elements). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the icon design meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows icon design principles: 1) Consistent stroke thickness throughout 2) Proper visual weight balance between elements 3) Clear silhouette recognizable at small sizes. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent line weights, 5 points for poor balance between elements, and 5 points for lack of clarity when scaled down. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the black and white color scheme effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the monochromatic design uses black and white effectively: 1) Appropriate contrast between elements 2) Strategic use of negative space 3) Clear visual hierarchy without relying on color. Deduct 5 points for poor contrast making elements hard to distinguish, 3 points for inconsistent use of fills vs. strokes, and 5 points for missed opportunities to use negative space effectively. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/implement-svg-amazon-logo.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 94,
+  "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. Please help me implement this SVG image using code - an Amazon logo with the Amazon logo in the middle.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Amazon logo accurately implemented in SVG?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG code correctly reproduces the Amazon logo with its distinctive curved arrow from 'a' to 'z' (representing that Amazon sells everything from A to Z) and the trademark smile. Check if the proportions match the official logo (roughly 2.55:1 width to height ratio). Deduct 5 points if the curved arrow is missing or inaccurate, 5 points if the smile is incorrect, and 3 points if the text is not properly rendered. Score 0 if the logo is unrecognizable as Amazon, 5 if it's recognizable but with significant inaccuracies, and 10 if it closely matches the official logo.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the SVG implementation optimized and clean?",
+      "description": "Check if the SVG uses appropriate elements (paths, groups, etc.) and if the path data is optimized (not unnecessarily complex). Amazon's logo should use smooth Bézier curves for the smile/arrow. Evaluate if the implementation avoids redundant nodes and uses proper grouping of elements. Deduct 5 points if path data is overly complex or inefficient, 3 points if inappropriate SVG elements are used, and 2 points if there's no grouping of related elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the logo properly centered and positioned?",
+      "description": "Verify that the logo is properly centered within the SVG viewport and that the viewBox attribute is properly set to ensure the logo is fully visible and properly scaled. Check if the implementation handles responsiveness correctly. Deduct 5 points if the logo is off-center, 3 points if parts of the logo are cut off due to improper viewBox settings, and 2 points if the SVG doesn't scale properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the Amazon brand colors implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation uses the correct official Amazon colors: primarily black for the text and orange (#FF9900) for the smile/arrow. Verify that the colors are applied consistently and appropriately to the different parts of the logo. Deduct 5 points for incorrect color values, 3 points for inconsistent color application, and 2 points for unnecessary additional colors. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG implementation handles different viewport sizes, browser compatibility issues, and includes fallback options (like title and description attributes for accessibility). Check if the code includes proper namespacing and avoids ID conflicts. Deduct 5 points if the SVG breaks at different sizes, 3 points for missing accessibility attributes, and 2 points for potential ID conflicts. The full score is 10 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. Subtle animations like the smile/arrow pulsing, 2. Interactive elements that respond to hover/click, 3. Creative integration with background elements). 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. Unnecessary graphical elements not part of the Amazon logo 2. Excessive styling that doesn't contribute to the logo's appearance 3. Complicated animations that distract from the logo itself. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with the core logo presentation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization, documentation (comments explaining complex parts), and whether the implementation follows SVG best practices. Check if the code avoids hard-coded values where possible and uses meaningful names for elements or groups. Deduct 5 points for poor organization or unclear structure, 3 points for lack of documentation, and 2 points for non-semantic element naming. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the visual output meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the rendered SVG follows logo design principles: 1) Clean edges without pixelation at any zoom level 2) Proper negative space around the logo (padding) 3) Balanced visual weight between text and graphical elements. Deduct 3 points for jaggy edges or pixelation, 4 points for improper spacing or crowding, and 3 points for imbalanced visual elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the implementation accessible and reusable?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the SVG includes ARIA attributes for screen readers, proper title and description elements, and whether it can be easily integrated into different contexts (web pages, documents, etc.). Check if the SVG avoids fixed dimensions that would prevent proper scaling. Deduct 5 points for missing accessibility features, 3 points for implementation that makes reuse difficult, and 2 points for scaling issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/implement-svg-black-and-white-snapple-logo-with-hat.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+{
+  "svg": "<svg width=\"200\" height=\"200\" viewBox=\"0 0 200 200\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\">\n  <rect x=\"0\" y=\"0\" width=\"200\" height=\"200\" fill=\"white\"/>\n  <circle cx=\"100\" cy=\"100\" r=\"80\" stroke=\"black\" stroke-width=\"4\"/>\n  <text x=\"100\" y=\"110\" font-family=\"Arial, sans-serif\" font-size=\"40\" fill=\"black\" text-anchor=\"middle\">Snapple</text>\n  <path d=\"M60 60 L140 60 L120 30 L80 30 Z\" fill=\"black\"/>\n</svg>"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/implement-svg-map-pin-nepal-flag.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 171,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible.\nPlease help me implement this SVG image using code. This is a vector illustration of a map pin icon featuring the flag of Nepal.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic map pin SVG structure correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly defines an SVG container with appropriate viewBox and dimensions. The map pin should have a recognizable pin shape with a rounded top and pointed bottom. Deduct 5 points if the basic pin silhouette is incorrect, 3 points if the proportions are distorted, and 2 points if the SVG attributes are incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the flag of Nepal accurately represented within the pin?",
+      "description": "Verify that the Nepal flag's unique non-rectangular shape (double pennant) is correctly implemented with the proper blue border and crimson background. The flag should include the sun and crescent moon symbols. Deduct 5 points if the flag shape is incorrect, 3 points if the symbols are missing or malformed, and 2 points if the colors don't match official specifications (crimson: #DC143C, blue: #003893). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the celestial elements of Nepal's flag correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine if the sun (12-pointed) and crescent moon symbols are accurately drawn using SVG path elements or appropriate geometric shapes. The proportions and placement should match official specifications. Deduct 5 points if the symbols are significantly distorted, 3 points for minor inaccuracies in ray count or shape, and 2 points for incorrect positioning. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the integration of the flag within the pin visually appropriate?",
+      "description": "Assess if the Nepal flag is properly positioned and scaled within the pin shape, respecting the flag's unique proportions while maintaining visual harmony. Deduct 5 points if the flag appears stretched or distorted, 3 points if it's poorly positioned, and 2 points if the integration lacks visual clarity. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle different display contexts (browser rendering, scaling, etc.) and includes appropriate fallbacks. Check for proper namespacing in SVG to avoid conflicts. Deduct 5 points if the SVG doesn't scale properly, 3 points if there's no fallback for older browsers, and 2 points if the code lacks comments for complex paths. The full score is 10 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. Hover/click animations 2. Responsive design adaptations 3. Gradient effects or shadows for depth). 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. Unnecessary nested group elements 2. Redundant path definitions that could be optimized 3. Excessive filters or effects that impact performance without adding value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core visual elements are obscured by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (such as using groups for logical sections), path optimization (minimized path commands), and SVG attribute best practices. Deduct 5 points if IDs/classes aren't used for potential CSS/JS manipulation; deduct 5 points if paths aren't optimized; deduct 5 points if the SVG isn't properly structured for accessibility. 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) Accurate color reproduction of Nepal's flag 2) Clean lines with appropriate stroke widths 3) Professional proportions that maintain integrity at different sizes. Deduct 3 points for jagged edges or poor anti-aliasing, 5 points for inaccurate colors, and 5 points for disproportionate elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the SVG optimized for performance and compatibility?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the SVG is optimized for web use: 1) Minimal path points without losing quality 2) Appropriate use of transforms over redundant path definitions 3) Compatibility with major browsers. Deduct 5 points for bloated paths with unnecessary points, 3 points for lack of minification capabilities, and 5 points for techniques that aren't widely supported. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/implement-svg-microsoft-edge-logo.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 98,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes.\nPlease help me implement this SVG image using code: the Microsoft Edge logo.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic SVG structure of the Microsoft Edge logo correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the SVG element has appropriate viewport dimensions, viewBox attribute, and proper namespace declarations. Verify that the basic structural elements needed for the Edge logo (the circular wave/swirl shape) are present. Score 0 if the SVG structure is missing or fundamentally incorrect, 5 if basic structure exists but with significant errors, and 10 if properly implemented with correct attributes and structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the logo accurately represent Microsoft Edge's current visual identity?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the logo matches the current Microsoft Edge logo design (blue-green gradient circular wave). Compare the shape accuracy against the official logo. Check for proper curvature of the wave elements. Deduct 3 points for minor shape inaccuracies, 5 points for significant shape distortions, and 7 points if the logo resembles an outdated version. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the correct color gradients implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the logo uses the official Microsoft Edge color scheme with proper gradients (transitioning from blue to teal/cyan). Check if the SVG implements proper <linearGradient> or <radialGradient> elements with correct color stops. Score 0 if solid colors are used instead of gradients, 5 if gradients are implemented but with incorrect colors, and 10 if both gradient type and colors accurately match the official logo.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the code optimized for SVG rendering?",
+      "description": "Examine if the SVG uses the most appropriate elements (paths, circles, etc.) for each part of the logo. Check for optimization techniques like path simplification, appropriate precision in coordinates (not excessive decimal places), and minimal use of redundant elements. Score 10 if fully optimized, 5 if partially optimized with some inefficiencies, and 3 if clearly unoptimized with redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, scaling problems, or viewBox rendering errors). Code with strong robustness should include fallback options or handle edge cases. Give 10 points for implementation with cross-browser compatibility considerations and proper error handling, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if obvious compatibility issues exist.",
+      "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 (e.g., 1. Subtle animations when hovering 2. Responsive scaling based on container size 3. Interactive elements within the logo). 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 SVG elements or attributes that don't contribute to the final rendering 2. Unnecessary nested groups or transforms that complicate the structure 3. Excessive styling that could be simplified. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core visual elements are obscured by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (such as logical grouping of SVG elements), meaningful naming of IDs and classes, and proper comments for complex path data or calculations. Deduct 5 points if elements lack descriptive IDs or classes; deduct 5 points if the code structure is chaotic with no logical grouping; deduct 5 points if there are no comments explaining complex path data. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the SVG rendering meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG output follows professional design principles: 1) Crisp edges without pixelation at various zoom levels 2) Proper proportions matching the official logo 3) Correct alignment of all elements. Deduct 3 points for each visual artifact or rendering issue, 5 points for noticeable proportional errors, and 5 points for misalignment of key elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the SVG properly scalable without quality loss?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the SVG properly scales across different display sizes and resolutions: 1) Maintains crisp edges when scaled up 2) Preserves all details when scaled down 3) Responds appropriately to container constraints. Deduct 5 points if the logo blurs or pixelates at larger sizes, 3 points if small details are lost at smaller sizes, and 5 points if the aspect ratio distorts during scaling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/implement-svg-wheelchair-accessible-icon.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 200,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration whenever possible. Please help me implement this SVG image using code. The wheelchair is accessible for the handicapped person.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the wheelchair SVG fully implemented with proper structure?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG code correctly implements a recognizable wheelchair symbol with appropriate elements (circles for wheels, lines/paths for the frame). Score 0 if the wheelchair is not implemented, 5 if it's basic but recognizable, and 10 if it includes detailed elements (wheel spokes, armrests, proper proportions) that make it highly identifiable.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the SVG use appropriate accessibility attributes?",
+      "description": "Check if accessibility attributes are implemented (role=\"img\", aria-label, title, desc elements). The SVG should be properly labeled as an accessibility symbol. Deduct 3 points if role attributes are missing, 3 points if descriptive elements are absent, and 4 points if screen reader compatibility is not considered. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the SVG properly scalable and responsive?",
+      "description": "Verify if the SVG uses proper viewBox attributes and relative units (percentages, em) rather than fixed pixel dimensions. The wheelchair symbol should scale appropriately across different screen sizes without distortion. Deduct 5 points if fixed dimensions are used and 5 points if the image loses clarity when scaled. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the SVG follow international standards for accessibility symbols?",
+      "description": "Assess if the wheelchair symbol conforms to recognized international accessibility standards (ISO 7001, ISA symbol). Check for correct proportions, colors (if specified), and recognizability. Deduct 10 points if the symbol doesn't adhere to recognized standards. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle different browser environments and includes fallback mechanisms (like PNG fallback for older browsers). Check for cross-browser compatibility and graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should be able to display in all major browsers, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no cross-browser considerations are made, 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. Subtle animations when focused 2. Color theme adaptability for light/dark modes 3. Interactive elements that respond to user actions). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate path definitions or elements 2. Unnecessary attributes that don't contribute to the appearance or function 3. Overly complex implementations that could be simplified. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functionality is obscured by unnecessary code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (proper grouping of SVG elements), naming conventions for IDs/classes, and maintainable structure. Deduct 5 points if elements aren't properly grouped; deduct 5 points if naming is inconsistent or unclear; deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments for complex parts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows modern design principles: 1) Clean lines and balanced proportions 2) Appropriate contrast for visibility 3) Professional appearance suitable for public signage. Deduct 3 points for each visual imbalance, 5 points for poor contrast that affects visibility, and 5 points for unprofessional appearance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is any dynamic interaction smooth and purposeful?",
+      "description": "If animations or interactions are included, judge whether they follow accessibility best practices: 1) Respects user preferences for reduced motion 2) Enhances rather than distracts from the symbol's purpose 3) Properly implemented with both CSS and SMIL methods for backward compatibility. Deduct 3 points for animations that can't be disabled, 4 points for distracting effects, and 3 points for poor animation performance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/svg-binoculars-browsing-searching-magnifying.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 87,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. \n\nPlease help me implement the following requirement using code: Create an SVG that depicts binoculars for browsing, searching, and magnifying.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the SVG binoculars structure accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the binoculars structure using SVG elements, including dual circular lenses, central bridge connection, eyepieces, and adjustment mechanism. Score 0 if basic binoculars shape is not recognizable, 5 if only basic circular lenses are implemented, and 10 if complete binoculars structure with all components (lenses, bridge, eyepieces, focusing ring details) is fully rendered.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the browsing, searching, and magnifying functionalities implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes interactive browsing (pan/drag), search functionality (target highlighting/scanning animation), and magnification effects (zoom in/out with visual feedback). Deduct 5 points if magnification lacks smooth transition, 3 points if search function has no visual indicators. Two-way interaction between user input and visual response is required. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the SVG optimization and scalability properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG uses efficient path optimization, proper viewBox configuration, and responsive scaling. Check if vector graphics maintain crisp edges at different zoom levels and use appropriate coordinate systems. Deduct 5 points if pixelation occurs during scaling, 3 points if SVG file size exceeds 50KB without justification. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete interaction lifecycle and state management constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete interaction states such as idle/active/searching/magnifying modes, with proper state transitions and visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if state management is not implemented, 3 points if transition animations are missing or abrupt. Give 10 points if full lifecycle with smooth state transitions is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid SVG parameters, browser compatibility issues, touch/mouse event conflicts, etc.) and provide graceful degradation or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases and cross-browser compatibility, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lens reflection effects 2. Dynamic focus adjustment with blur effects 3. Multi-target search with breadcrumb trails 4. Gesture-based controls). 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 SVG elements or duplicate paths 2. Unnecessary JavaScript libraries for simple interactions 3. Over-complex animations that don't serve the core functionality. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core binoculars functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (separation of SVG structure, styling, and interaction logic), proper use of CSS classes vs inline styles, and clean JavaScript architecture. Deduct 5 points if inline styles dominate over CSS classes; deduct 5 points if JavaScript lacks proper event handling or uses deprecated methods; deduct 5 points if SVG structure is not semantic or accessible. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the binoculars design follows realistic proportions and professional aesthetics: 1) Accurate lens-to-body ratio (typically 1:1.2) 2) Consistent color scheme with realistic metallic/plastic textures 3) Proper shadow and highlight placement for 3D effect. Deduct 3 points for each unrealistic proportion, 5 points for inconsistent lighting/shadow direction, and 5 points for color choices that don't reflect real binoculars materials. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactive effects conform to natural binoculars usage: 1) Smooth magnification transitions (300-500ms duration) 2) Realistic focus adjustment with appropriate easing 3) Intuitive gesture mapping (pinch-to-zoom, drag-to-pan). Deduct 5 points for each jarring animation, 3 points for unnatural interaction patterns, and 5 points for poor touch/mouse event handling. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/svg-download-files-folder-computer-arrow-circle.json

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+{
+  "label": "create a visual representation of downloading files from a folder on a computer by clicking on an arrow within a circle",
+  "svg": "<svg width=\"24\" height=\"24\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><path d=\"M4 17v2a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h12a2 2 0 0 0 2-2v-2\"/><polyline points=\"7 11 12 16 17 11\"/><line x1=\"12\" y1=\"16\" x2=\"12\" y2=\"4\"/></svg>"
+}