@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/svg_generation-svg_images/trifold-brochure-map-svg-code.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 144,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable and can be displayed properly.\nPlease help me implement the following requirement using code, creating a: Trifold brochure map using SVG code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the SVG trifold brochure map structure correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the SVG code properly defines a trifold brochure layout with three equal panels that can fold correctly. Verify that the viewBox and dimensions are appropriate for a standard brochure format (typically 11x8.5 inches when unfolded). Score 0 if the structure doesn't represent a trifold format, 5 if basic panels are defined but with incorrect proportions, and 10 if the structure is properly implemented with correct proportions and fold lines.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the map visualization contain necessary geographical elements?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG includes essential map elements: landmasses, roads/paths, points of interest, water bodies, and landmarks. Check that these elements are implemented using appropriate SVG elements (paths for roads, polygons for areas, etc.). Deduct 2 points for each missing essential map element. The map should be geographically coherent and accurate for its purpose. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the brochure content organized logically across the three panels?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the content flows logically across the three panels, with appropriate content hierarchy. The first panel should typically contain introductory information, the inner panels should contain the main map content, and the back panel should contain additional information or details. Deduct 5 points if the content organization is confusing or illogical, and 3 points if panel transitions are abrupt or inconsistent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are interactive elements and map features properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check for interactive features like hoverable/clickable points of interest, zoomable areas, or toggleable map layers using SVG and JavaScript. Evaluate whether these interactions enhance the user experience and are implemented smoothly. Score 0 if no interactivity exists, 5 if basic hover/click events are implemented, and 10 if comprehensive, intuitive interactions are implemented with appropriate visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG code can handle different viewing environments (browsers, screen sizes) and includes fallbacks or responsive design. Check for proper namespace declarations, valid SVG syntax, and appropriate element IDs/classes. Code with strong robustness should adapt to different viewing contexts without breaking. Give 10 points if the SVG is fully responsive and cross-browser compatible, 5 points if there are minor issues, and 0 points if the SVG only works in specific conditions.",
+      "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. Animated route highlighting 2. Interactive location finder 3. Fold animation simulation 4. Multi-language support with symbol legend). 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 groups that overlap unnecessarily 2. Excessive detail in areas that will be too small to see clearly 3. Decorative elements that obstruct important map information. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core map functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review the structure of the SVG code, including proper grouping (<g> elements), efficient use of symbols and reusable components, and appropriate naming conventions. Check for optimization techniques like path simplification and appropriate use of SVG filters. Deduct 5 points if there's significant code redundancy; deduct 5 points if the SVG structure is disorganized or lacks comments; deduct 5 points if the file size is unnecessarily large due to poor optimization. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the brochure design follows cartographic and print design principles: 1) Appropriate color scheme for map features (distinguishable yet harmonious) 2) Clear typographic hierarchy (readable font sizes, proper contrast) 3) Professional legend and scale design 4) Well-designed margins and bleed areas for printing. Deduct 3 points for each illegible text element, 5 points for poor color choices that affect map readability, and 5 points for layout issues that would affect printing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether any dynamic effects in the SVG map (animations, transitions, interactive elements) perform well: 1) Animations are purposeful and not distracting 2) Interactive elements provide immediate visual feedback 3) Transitions are smooth and meaningful. Deduct 5 points for laggy animations, 3 points for inconsistent interaction patterns, and 5 points for animations that interfere with understanding the map. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Images",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_images/using-a-kitchen-grater-to-shred-cheese.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 146,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration.\nPlease help me implement the following requirement using code, specifically creating it using SVG code. The requirement is to create: Using a kitchen grater to shred cheese.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the kitchen grater accurately represented in SVG?",
+      "description": "Check if the SVG code properly renders a recognizable kitchen grater with appropriate structure (handle, body with holes/grating surface). Evaluate if the proportions are realistic and the grater has sufficient detail to be identifiable. Score 0 if the grater is unrecognizable, 5 if basic but lacking detail, 10 if properly detailed with accurate proportions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the cheese representation and shredding effect convincing?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the cheese is visually distinct and realistically portrayed. Check if the shredded cheese particles look authentic and if the transformation from block to shreds is properly visualized. Deduct 5 points if cheese texture is unrealistic, 3 points if shreds lack dimension or variation, and 2 points if the cheese block appears too synthetic. Full score for realistic cheese with proper texture and convincing shreds.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the animation of cheese shredding implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the animation showing the cheese being shredded against the grater. Animation should include the movement of cheese against the grater, creation of shreds, and proper timing. Score 0 if no animation exists, 5 if basic motion is shown but lacks realism, 10 if animation includes smooth movement, proper physics representation, and convincing transformation of cheese into shreds.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is user interaction incorporated to enhance the demonstration?",
+      "description": "Check if interactive elements allow users to control the grating process (e.g., dragging the cheese, controlling speed, changing angle). Award 3 points for basic click interaction, 7 points for drag-and-grate functionality, and full 10 points if multiple interactive elements work together (adjusting speed, angle, pressure) with proper visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, window resizing, interrupted animations) and provide fallbacks 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. Different cheese types with unique textures 2. Variable grating speeds affecting shred size 3. Physics-based particle effects for the cheese shreds). 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 that increase file size without visual benefit 2. Unnecessary animations that don't contribute to the kitchen grater demonstration 3. Complex effects that slow down rendering performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of SVG structure, styles, and animations), code reusability (use of symbols, groups, or components), and optimization for performance. Deduct 5 points for excessive inline styles rather than grouped CSS; deduct 5 points for repetitive path definitions that could be reused; deduct 5 points for animations that cause 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 modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (realistic colors for kitchen implements) 2) Proper proportions and perspective 3) Appropriate level of detail without overwhelming the visual space. Deduct 3 points for unrealistic colors, 5 points for perspective inconsistencies, and 5 points for either excessive or insufficient detail. 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 real-world physics: 1) Smooth grating motion without jerky transitions 2) Realistic accumulation of cheese shreds 3) Proper timing for the entire process that matches real-life expectations. Deduct 5 points for unrealistic motion physics, 3 points for inconsistent animation timing, and 5 points for visual glitches during the animation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Images",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_images/wheat-food-vs-wheat-free-grains-visualization.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 64,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure the generated code is executable for display. Please help me implement the following requirement using SVG code: a visualization showing that wheat is a type of cereal plant used as food, but some people eat wheat-free whole grains.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic SVG structure correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG code includes proper namespace declarations, viewBox settings, and responsive design considerations. Check if the SVG container is well-structured with appropriate dimensions and scaling properties. Deduct 5 points if the SVG lacks proper viewport settings, 3 points if responsive scaling is missing, and 5 points if namespace declarations are incorrect. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the wheat visualization accurately represented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the SVG code visually represents wheat with botanical accuracy (wheat ears, stems, kernels). Check if the visualization correctly portrays wheat's distinctive characteristics. Award 10 points for detailed, accurate representation with proper proportions and recognizable features; 5 points if wheat is represented but lacks detail or accuracy; 0 points if wheat is unrecognizable or missing entirely.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the visualization clearly show wheat as a cereal plant?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the visualization establishes wheat's classification as a cereal plant through visual elements, grouping, or labels. Check if the relationship between wheat and the broader cereal category is evident. Award 10 points if the cereal plant classification is clearly depicted through hierarchical organization, informative labeling, or comparative visualization; 5 points if the relationship is present but unclear; 0 points if this relationship is absent.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the visualization effectively show wheat-free whole grain alternatives?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the visualization includes and clearly identifies wheat-free whole grain options (such as rice, oats, quinoa, millet, etc.) as alternatives. Check if these alternatives are visually distinct from wheat while still showing they belong to the broader whole grain category. Award 10 points for comprehensive, clearly labeled alternatives with visual differentiation; 5 points if alternatives are present but poorly differentiated; 0 points if wheat-free alternatives are missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles potential rendering issues across browsers, includes fallback options, and uses best practices for SVG implementation. Code with strong robustness should have comments explaining complex parts, defensive coding techniques, and browser compatibility considerations. Give 10 points for comprehensive robustness measures, 5 points for average implementation, and 0 points if robustness considerations are absent.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the visualization includes surprise features that enhance the educational experience (e.g., 1. Interactive elements showing nutritional differences 2. Morphing animations between grain types 3. Visual indicators of gluten content). 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 visual elements that don't contribute to the core message 2. Unnecessary complexity in SVG path definitions 3. Decorative elements that distract from the educational content. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core visualization is obscured by redundant elements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular organization (such as grouping related SVG elements), code reusability (through symbols, defs, or patterns), and naming conventions. Deduct 5 points if SVG elements lack meaningful IDs or classes; deduct 5 points if the code contains duplicate definitions that could be reused; deduct 5 points if there is no logical structure to element organization. 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 palette appropriate for food/agricultural content 2) Proper visual hierarchy with clear focal points 3) Professional typography for labels and explanatory text (readable font sizes and weights). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered area, 5 points for poor color choices that harm readability, and 5 points for inconsistent visual style. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether any included dynamic effects or interactions enhance understanding: 1) Tooltips or hover states reveal additional information 2) Animations serve educational purposes rather than being merely decorative 3) Transitions between states are intuitive and meaningful. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without clear feedback, 3 points for animations that don't contribute to understanding, and 5 points for interactive elements that aren't discoverable. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Images",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_images/woman-profile-long-hair-feminine-hairstyle.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 53,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable and can be displayed. Please help me implement this SVG image using code. The woman's profile showed a girl with long hair and a feminine hairstyle.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the SVG structure correctly implemented with proper semantic elements?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code uses appropriate SVG elements (path, circle, ellipse, polygon) to construct the woman's profile silhouette. Check if the facial contours, hair outline, and facial features are accurately represented using vector graphics. Score 0 if basic SVG structure is missing, 5 if only simple shapes are used without proper profiling, and 10 if complex paths accurately depict feminine facial features and hair flow.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the feminine characteristics and long hair properly rendered?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG implementation captures distinctive feminine features such as curved jawline, delicate nose bridge, and especially the long hair with flowing texture. Check if hair strands use smooth curves and layered paths to create realistic hair movement. Deduct 5 points if hair lacks volume or texture, 3 points if facial features appear too angular or masculine. Full score requires clear feminine silhouette with detailed hair rendering.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the SVG coordinate system and scalability properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the SVG uses proper viewBox settings and coordinate systems that allow for responsive scaling. Evaluate if the proportions maintain accuracy across different screen sizes and if the vector graphics remain crisp at various zoom levels. Deduct 5 points if viewBox is not set correctly, 3 points if elements don't scale proportionally, and 2 points if stroke-width doesn't adapt to scaling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are advanced SVG techniques utilized for realistic representation?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the implementation uses advanced SVG features like gradients for hair shading, clip-paths for layered hair effects, or multiple path segments for detailed facial contours. Check if bezier curves are used effectively to create smooth, natural lines. Give 10 points if advanced techniques create photorealistic effects, 5 points for basic gradients/curves, and 0 points for simple geometric shapes only.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust and handles edge cases?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common issues such as browser compatibility, rendering fallbacks, and proper error handling for unsupported SVG features. Code should include fallback mechanisms for older browsers and handle invalid viewBox parameters gracefully. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic compatibility measures, and 0 points if no edge cases are considered.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance the visual appeal?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes creative enhancements such as: 1) Animated hair movement with CSS/SVG animations 2) Interactive hover effects revealing different expressions 3) Dynamic color variations or themes 4) Layered composition with background elements. Add 3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary elements?",
+      "description": "Strictly examine for three types of redundancy: 1) Duplicate path definitions or overlapping elements 2) Unnecessary complex paths where simple shapes would suffice 3) Excessive detail that doesn't contribute to the overall feminine profile representation. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and deduct 10 points if redundant code significantly impacts rendering performance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code demonstrate engineering quality and maintainability?",
+      "description": "Review code organization including proper SVG structure, meaningful element IDs/classes, modular CSS styling, and clean path definitions. Deduct 5 points if paths are not optimized or contain unnecessary anchor points; deduct 5 points if styling is inline rather than separated; deduct 5 points if the code lacks proper documentation or comments explaining complex path constructions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the visual design meet professional artistic standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the profile demonstrates proper artistic proportions: 1) Facial golden ratio adherence (eye placement, nose-to-chin ratio) 2) Harmonious color palette with no more than 3-4 primary colors 3) Proper contrast and visual hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for disproportionate facial features, 5 points for poor color harmony, and 5 points if the overall composition lacks artistic balance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the rendering performance optimized and visually smooth?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the SVG renders smoothly across devices: 1) Path complexity optimized for fast rendering 2) Smooth curves without visible anchor points 3) Proper anti-aliasing for clean edges 4) Efficient use of gradients and effects. Deduct 5 points for visible rendering artifacts, 3 points for choppy curves or pixelated edges, and 5 points for performance issues causing slow loading or laggy interactions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Images",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_images/women-red-lipstick-beauty-accessory.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 159,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes.\nPlease help me implement this SVG image using code. Women use red lipstick as a beauty accessory.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core SVG lipstick element properly rendered?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the lipstick shape is accurately rendered with appropriate SVG elements (path, rect, etc.). The lipstick should include both the tube body and the colored tip part. Check if proper dimensions are used for proportionality, and if the overall shape resembles a realistic lipstick. Score 0 if no lipstick is visible, 5 if only a basic shape is implemented, and 10 if the lipstick has detailed components and realistic proportions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the coloring of the lipstick accurate and aesthetically pleasing?",
+      "description": "Review the color choices used for the lipstick. The tip should be in an appropriate shade of red that looks like actual lipstick. The tube/case should have appropriate contrasting color (gold, silver, black, etc.). Points are deducted for unrealistic colors (e.g., blue lipstick tip), poor color matching between components, or lack of shading that makes the lipstick look flat. Score 0 if colors are completely inappropriate, 5 for basic coloring, and 10 for realistic lipstick coloring with appropriate shading.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are proper SVG techniques utilized for visual enhancement?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation uses appropriate SVG techniques such as gradients, shadows, highlights, or patterns to enhance the realism of the lipstick. Evaluate use of techniques like linear/radial gradients for glossy effects, filter effects for shadows, or path manipulations for precise shapes. Deduct 5 points if no enhancement techniques are used, and 3 points if techniques are used but poorly implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the lipstick positioned effectively with appropriate context elements?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the lipstick is presented with appropriate context (e.g., slight tilt to show usage angle, potentially on a surface or with beauty accessories). Check if the positioning creates a coherent image that communicates the lipstick as a beauty accessory. Deduct 5 points if the lipstick is floating without context, and 3 points if positioning is awkward or unrealistic. Full points for thoughtful positioning that enhances the presentation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common display issues (browser compatibility, scaling/responsive display, etc.) and provides fallback options or appropriate viewBox settings. Code with strong robustness should be able to render consistently across modern browsers and screen sizes, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no considerations for robustness 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. Animation effects like lipstick application or cap removal 2. Interactive elements that respond to user input 3. Creative presentation elements beyond basic requirements). 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 groups that serve no purpose 2. Excessive detail that impacts performance without visual benefit 3. Unnecessary animations or effects that distract from the main subject. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core subject (lipstick) is obscured by redundant elements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (such as logical grouping of SVG elements), proper naming of groups/elements, and efficient use of SVG features. Deduct 5 points if elements are not properly grouped or named; deduct 5 points if the code contains duplicated patterns that could be optimized; deduct 5 points if the implementation unnecessarily increases file size through inefficient techniques. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (realistic and aesthetically pleasing) 2) Proper proportions and visual balance 3) Professional finish with attention to detail. Deduct 3 points for each unrealistic proportion, 5 points for jarring color combinations, and 5 points for poor visual balance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the implementation complete and suitable for the described purpose?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the final SVG effectively represents a lipstick as a beauty accessory: 1) Clear recognition as lipstick without explanation 2) Visual quality that communicates 'beauty product' rather than just an object 3) Overall impression that aligns with cosmetic industry standards. Deduct 5 points if the lipstick is unrecognizable without context, 3 points if it lacks refinement expected of beauty products, and 5 points if it fails to convey the accessory aspect. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Images",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_posters/customizable-recruitment-poster-vue-svg.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 321,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable whenever possible. I am a frontend developer, and I need to develop a customizable recruitment poster application where users can design their own poster templates and export them as vector files. How can this be implemented using Vue and SVG?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core SVG poster generation system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code effectively implements an SVG-based poster generation system that allows for dynamic customization. Score 0 if there's no SVG generation code, 5 if basic SVG elements are rendered without proper customization, and 10 if the system provides a comprehensive API for creating, modifying, and styling SVG elements in the poster context.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the Vue implementation provide a robust component architecture for the editor?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the Vue component architecture. Check if components are properly segregated (e.g., canvas component, toolbar component, property panel component), if they use proper prop validation, emit proper events, and if the state management is appropriate for this use case (Vuex/Pinia for complex state, component state for local concerns). Deduct 3 points for monolithic components, 3 points for prop-drilling beyond 2 levels, and 4 points if reactive data isn't properly utilized.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the template management system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if users can save, load, and manage poster templates. Check if templates are serialized in a proper format (JSON), if the system handles template versioning, and if predefined templates are available as starting points. Deduct 5 points if template saving is not implemented, 3 points if there's no way to categorize templates, and 2 points if template previews aren't generated.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the vector file export functionality correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine if the system can export designs in vector formats (SVG, AI, EPS, or PDF). Check if the export preserves all visual elements, layers, and effects. Verify if text remains editable in the exported files. Deduct 5 points if only raster export is available, 5 points if vector export loses fidelity, and 5 points if user isn't given export options (size, format, quality).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid SVG data, failed exports, browser compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time collaborative editing 2. AI-assisted design recommendations 3. Advanced SVG filters and effects 4. Integration with design asset libraries). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to edit the same property) 2. Function modules unrelated to poster design (e.g., a built-in image editor when simple crop/resize would suffice) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). 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 editor logic/view/data layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Posters",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-automation/ai-automatic-webpage-creation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1596,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code when possible. How can AI be used to automatically create webpages?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Does the solution provide a comprehensive explanation of AI webpage generation approaches?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the response thoroughly explains different AI approaches for webpage generation (e.g., GPT models, GAN-based solutions, template-based AI systems, automated layout engines). Score 0 if only a single approach is mentioned, 5 if multiple approaches are covered but lack technical depth, and 10 if the explanation includes multiple well-explained methodologies with their respective strengths and limitations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is there functioning code for an AI webpage generator implementation?",
+      "description": "Check if the code provided can actually generate HTML/CSS webpages. The solution should include either: 1) integration with AI APIs (like OpenAI), 2) a local ML model implementation, or 3) a hybrid approach. Test if the code executes without errors and produces valid HTML output. Deduct 5 points if the code requires significant modifications to run, deduct all 10 points if the code is fundamentally flawed or non-executable.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the solution handle user requirements and content processing?",
+      "description": "Assess if the implementation includes parsing and understanding user requirements (e.g., converting natural language descriptions to webpage specifications). The code should extract key elements like layout preferences, color schemes, and content structure from user inputs. Deduct 5 points if the solution lacks requirement parsing mechanisms, deduct 3 points if it fails to handle ambiguous user inputs. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a mechanism for customization and refinement of AI-generated webpages?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the solution includes tools for users to refine the AI-generated content (such as feedback loops, parameter adjustments, or iterative generation). Check if the implementation allows for specification of style guides or brand requirements. Deduct 5 points if refinement is manual only, deduct 3 points if the customization options are too limited. 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 malformed user inputs, API failures, resource limitations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time preview of generated pages 2. Multi-modal input processing (text, images, voice) 3. Accessibility compliance checking for generated pages). 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 HTML generators with overlapping capabilities) 2. Function modules unrelated to webpage generation (e.g., unnecessary analytics tools) 3. Resource-intensive features that affect performance (e.g., excessive API calls or computations). 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 AI logic/webpage rendering/user interface layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the solution consider webpage quality and standards compliance?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the generated webpages follow modern web standards: 1) Valid HTML/CSS that passes W3C validation 2) Responsive design principles for multi-device support 3) Semantic HTML structure for accessibility. Deduct 3 points for non-validating code, 5 points for non-responsive layouts, and 5 points for poor semantic structure. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Does the solution address performance and scalability concerns?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the implementation considers performance optimization: 1) Generation time for pages ≤ 30 seconds 2) Reasonable resource consumption 3) Capability to handle multiple concurrent requests. Deduct 5 points for slow generation times, 3 points for excessive resource usage, and 5 points for lack of concurrent request handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Automation",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-automation/ai-automatically-write-website-code.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1276,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible. How can I make AI automatically write website code for me?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is there a clear explanation of AI code generation concepts and approaches?",
+      "description": "Check whether the response explains the fundamental concepts of AI code generation, including different approaches (prompt engineering, model fine-tuning, using specialized AI coding assistants). Deduct 5 points if only a single approach is explained, 7 points if the explanation lacks technical depth. Full score: 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are practical tools and platforms for AI website code generation presented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the comprehensiveness of the AI code generation tool recommendations (e.g., GPT-4, GitHub Copilot, Amazon CodeWhisperer, Microsoft Power Pages). Deduct 3 points for each major platform category missing (code completion tools, no-code builders, specialized code generators). Give 10 points for a comprehensive list with pros/cons of each tool.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a detailed walkthrough for using at least one AI code generation system?",
+      "description": "Review whether the response provides step-by-step instructions for at least one AI code generation approach, including setup, prompt design, and output handling. Deduct 5 points if the instructions are too vague to follow, 3 points if they lack screenshots/examples. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are there sample prompts or templates specifically designed for website code generation?",
+      "description": "Check if the response includes effective prompt engineering techniques or templates specifically for website development tasks (e.g., layout creation, component design, API integration). Deduct 3 points for generic prompts without web-specific guidance, 5 points if fewer than 3 usable templates are provided. Full score: 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether any sample code provided handles common edge cases (responsive design, accessibility concerns, cross-browser compatibility, input validation, etc.) and follows best practices. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the response includes surprise features that enhance the AI code generation experience (e.g., 1. Version control integration 2. Automatic documentation generation 3. Performance optimization suggestions). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature mentioned (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant explanation of similar AI tools 2. Unnecessary technical details unrelated to website generation 3. Overly complex approaches that complicate the process. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core information is obscured by redundant content.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the response have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review whether the methodology suggested follows software engineering best practices (separation of concerns, modular design, testing strategies, iterative improvement). Deduct 5 points if the approach encourages monolithic code generation; deduct 5 points if no testing/validation strategy is mentioned; deduct 5 points if the process isn't iterative. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the guidance consider UI/UX design principles?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the AI code generation approach incorporates modern design principles: 1) Responsive design 2) Accessibility standards 3) Visual hierarchy and user flow. Deduct 3 points for each design principle category neglected, 5 points if there's no mention of testing the generated UI with users, and 5 points if performance considerations are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is there practical advice on limitations and human oversight?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the response realistically addresses the limitations of AI code generation and provides guidance on necessary human oversight: 1) Security review needs 2) Performance optimization 3) Business logic validation. Deduct 5 points for overpromising AI capabilities, 3 points for not addressing technical debt concerns, and 5 points for failing to mention testing requirements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Automation",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}