@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/random-number-wheel-1-to-200.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1816,
+  "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. Create a random number wheel from 1 to 200.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the wheel interface properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code creates a visually clear wheel with numbers 1-200 displayed in a circular arrangement. Numbers should be legible, with appropriate font size and spacing. Score 0 if no visual wheel is created, 5 if the wheel exists but numbers are hard to read, and 10 if the wheel is visually well-designed with clear number placement.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the random number selection mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code uses a proper random number generation method (Math.random or similar appropriate function) that ensures each number from 1-200 has an equal probability of being selected. Check if the randomness is correctly applied to the wheel's spinning mechanism. Score 0 if randomness is not implemented, 5 if basic randomness exists but with bias, and 10 if truly random selection is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the spinning animation smooth and realistic?",
+      "description": "Review the wheel's spinning animation - it should gradually slow down to simulate physics (easing function), have appropriate duration (3-7 seconds), and provide a clear indication of the final selected number. Deduct 5 points if the animation is jerky, 3 points if there's no deceleration effect, and 3 points if the final selection isn't clearly highlighted.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there user interaction for triggering the wheel spin?",
+      "description": "Check if there's a clear mechanism (button, click event, etc.) for users to trigger the wheel spin. The interaction should include appropriate visual feedback (button state change, cursor change) and prevent multiple spins while animation is in progress. Score 0 if no interaction exists, 5 if basic interaction exists but lacks feedback, and 10 if interaction is intuitive with proper feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as rapid multiple clicks, browser resizing, script errors) 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. Sound effects during spinning 2. Confetti/visual effects when landing on a number 3. History of previous spins 4. Customizable speed/appearance). 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 methods to trigger spinning) 2. Function modules unrelated to the wheel (e.g., unnecessary analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the page). 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 wheel logic/view/animation), code organization, and reusability. 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; deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns between UI and logic. 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 wheel 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) Wheel animation performance (60fps without frame drops) 3) Clear visual indication of result. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for stuttering animation, and 5 points for unclear result indication. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/retirement-calculator-html.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1774,
+  "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. Create a retirement calculator in HTML format.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the retirement calculator core functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the calculator accurately computes retirement savings based on standard financial formulas (including compound interest calculation, inflation adjustment, and withdrawal rate projections). Check if it accounts for key variables: initial savings, monthly contribution, expected return rate, inflation rate, retirement age, and life expectancy. Score 0 if basic calculations are missing, 5 if only simple projections are implemented, and 10 if comprehensive financial modeling is included with accurate formulas.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the calculator include input validation and constraints?",
+      "description": "Check whether the form implements proper input validation (numeric constraints, reasonable ranges for percentages/ages, prevention of negative values, etc.). Verify if the code provides immediate feedback on invalid inputs and handles edge cases (extremely high return rates, unrealistic age inputs). Deduct 5 points if basic validation is missing, 3 points if validation exists but error messages are unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a visual representation of retirement projections?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the calculator includes data visualization components (charts/graphs) that illustrate retirement savings growth over time, showing accumulation and withdrawal phases. Check if the visualization is interactive, allowing users to see how changing variables affects outcomes. Award 10 points for comprehensive, interactive visualizations, 5 points for basic static charts, and 0 points if visual representation is entirely missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are additional financial planning features included?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the calculator goes beyond basic calculations to include features like different withdrawal strategies comparison, Social Security integration, tax implications modeling, or scenario comparison tools. Deduct 3 points for each major financial planning aspect missing that would be expected in a comprehensive retirement calculator. Full score is 10 points for a feature-complete financial planning tool.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as non-numeric inputs, extreme values, browser compatibility issues, 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. Monte Carlo simulation for market variability 2. Automated savings goal recommendations 3. Dynamic retirement age adjustment based on savings rate). 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 calculations (e.g., multiple formulas calculating the same metric) 2. Function modules unrelated to retirement planning (e.g., a built-in currency converter) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow calculations). 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 calculation logic/view/input handling), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between HTML structure, CSS styling, and JavaScript functionality. 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 suitable for financial applications (professional, trustworthy palette) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear form organization and logical flow 3) Professional font system with adequate sizing for financial data readability. Deduct 3 points for cluttered input fields, 5 points for poor visual hierarchy of results, and 5 points for chaotic arrangement of controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the calculator provides immediate feedback on input changes: 1) Instant recalculation when inputs change 2) Smooth transitions when displaying results 3) Clear visual cues for important financial thresholds or goals. Deduct 5 points if calculations require manual triggering with no auto-update, 3 points for laggy updates when changing variables, and 5 points for confusing input-to-result relationships. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/uniapp-android-camera-tree-dbh-measurement.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1651,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Please use HBuilder to develop a uniapp that calls the Android device camera to measure tree diameter at breast height (DBH), with the following requirements: 1. The interface should be visually appealing and appropriate for the forestry industry; 2. After opening the interface, the device camera should automatically start, displaying the image in the photo area; 3. Add two vertical thin red lines in the photo area as reference lines for tree boundaries, which can be moved manually; 4. When clicking the measurement button, take a photo of the tree while calculating and displaying the DBH measurement result.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the camera functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements camera integration through uniapp APIs, including automatic camera startup, real-time preview display, and photo capture functionality. Check if camera permissions are properly requested and handled. Score 0 if camera doesn't work, 5 if only basic capture is implemented, and 10 if all camera features including preview, capture, and permission handling are fully functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the movable reference lines properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the two vertical red reference lines are correctly overlaid on the camera preview, can be moved manually through touch gestures, and maintain proper positioning during camera operations. Check if the lines have appropriate visual styling (thin, red, clearly visible). Deduct 5 points if lines are not movable, 3 points if touch interaction is unresponsive, and 5 points if lines disappear during camera operations. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the DBH measurement algorithm accurate and reliable?",
+      "description": "Check whether the measurement calculation uses proper scaling algorithms based on reference objects or camera parameters to convert pixel distance to real-world measurements. Evaluate if the algorithm accounts for distance, camera angle, and provides reasonable DBH values. Deduct 5 points if no scaling mechanism exists, 3 points if measurements are consistently inaccurate, and 5 points if the algorithm doesn't handle edge cases. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the forestry-themed interface design professionally implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the interface design appropriately reflects forestry industry aesthetics with nature-inspired color schemes, professional measurement tool styling, and industry-appropriate iconography. Check if the interface includes proper measurement units display, clear result presentation, and forestry-specific visual elements. Deduct 5 points if the design looks generic, 3 points if forestry context is missing, and 5 points if the interface appears unprofessional. 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 camera access denial, device orientation changes, measurement calculation errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle camera failures, permission issues, and measurement edge cases, 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 enhance measurement accuracy?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes advanced features that improve measurement precision (e.g., 1. Auto-detection of tree edges 2. Multiple measurement averaging 3. Calibration using known reference objects 4. Measurement history with GPS location). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature that enhances measurement functionality (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 photo capture methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to tree measurement (e.g., built-in photo filters) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex animations during measurement). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core measurement 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 camera logic/measurement algorithms/UI components), proper uniapp project structure, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or component architecture is poor; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if uniapp best practices are not followed. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional forestry application standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows forestry application principles: 1) Nature-appropriate color palette (greens, browns, earth tones) 2) Clear measurement display with proper units and precision 3) Professional tool-like interface with good contrast for outdoor use. Deduct 3 points for each unclear measurement display, 5 points for inappropriate color choices that don't suit forestry context, and 5 points for poor readability in bright outdoor conditions. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the touch interaction smooth and measurement-focused?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions are optimized for field measurement use: 1) Reference line dragging responds within 100ms 2) Measurement button provides immediate visual feedback 3) Results display clearly with appropriate precision 4) Interface remains stable during device movement. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive interaction, 3 points for laggy reference line movement, and 5 points for unclear measurement result presentation. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/uniapp-mortgage-calculator-app-code.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 793,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for demonstration. UniApp: Mortgage calculator app code, then guide me step by step on how to turn the code into an APP.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the mortgage calculator functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code accurately implements core mortgage calculation formulas (principal, interest rate, loan term, monthly payment, total payment, total interest). Check for support of both equal principal and equal installment methods. Score 0 if calculations are missing, 5 if only basic calculations exist, and 10 if comprehensive mortgage calculation features are implemented with validation of input ranges (e.g., interest rate bounds, maximum loan periods).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the UniApp code follow proper framework structure and conventions?",
+      "description": "Check if the code follows UniApp's recommended project structure with proper separation of pages, components, and services. Verify the implementation of the App.vue, manifest.json, pages.json files. Deduct 5 points if the basic configuration files are missing or incomplete, 3 points if component reusability isn't considered, and 2 points if platform-specific adaptations are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the step-by-step app compilation guide comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether clear instructions are provided for: 1) Setting up the development environment (HBuilderX), 2) Configuring project settings, 3) Testing in simulator, and 4) Building for different platforms (iOS/Android/H5). Deduct 3 points for each major step omitted, and 2 points if platform-specific considerations (certificates, signatures) are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include data persistence and state management?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the app implements history saving, settings persistence, and proper state management. Check for the use of storage APIs, Vuex/Pinia for state management, and handling of computation history. Deduct 5 points if no data persistence exists, 3 points if the state management is poorly implemented, and 2 points if user preferences aren't saved. 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 invalid inputs, calculation edge cases, network interruptions when saving data). Code with strong robustness should validate all user inputs, provide clear error messages, and implement fail-safe mechanisms. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the app includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Different loan type comparisons 2. Visualizations of payment schedules 3. Integration with local bank interest rates). 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 calculation methods or overlapping functionality 2. Features unrelated to mortgage calculation (e.g., unnecessary mini-games or unrelated tools) 3. Overly complex UI elements that harm usability. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core mortgage calculation is obscured by unnecessary features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of UI/logic/data layers), code reusability, and build process configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state is mismanaged; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is high (similar calculation logic repeated); deduct 5 points if the build and deployment process isn't properly configured in manifest.json. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern mobile design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme suitable for financial apps 2) Proper spacing and layout (following system guidelines) 3) Readable typography system (minimum 14px text). Examine screenshots for: Deduct 3 points for crowded input fields, 5 points for inappropriate color combinations in financial contexts, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the app provides immediate feedback: 1) Calculation results appear within 100ms 2) Form transitions are smooth with appropriate animations 3) Clear visual indicators for interactive elements. From screenshots, deduct 5 points for any calculation without loading states, 3 points for jarring transitions between views, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/used-car-value-assessment-template-uniapp-frontend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1355,
+  "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. Used car value assessment template for uniapp frontend.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is a complete car value assessment form implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements a comprehensive form for collecting essential car data (make, model, year, mileage, condition). The form should include proper validation with real-time feedback. Score 0 if the core form is missing, 5 if basic fields are implemented but lack validation, and 10 if a complete form with validation and field dependencies (e.g., model options changing based on selected make) is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the car value calculation algorithm implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes a reasonable valuation algorithm that considers multiple factors (age depreciation, mileage impact, condition multipliers, market trends). Deduct 5 points if only basic linear depreciation is used. Deduct 3 points if market adjustments are missing. The algorithm should be well-commented and account for edge cases (very old/new cars, extremely low/high mileage). Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are uniapp-specific components and APIs utilized properly?",
+      "description": "Review whether the implementation properly utilizes uniapp components and APIs (uni-form, uni-picker, uni-popup) instead of generic HTML elements. Check for proper cross-platform adaptations and lifecycle hooks. Deduct 5 points if platform-specific code is not properly conditioned. Deduct 3 points if uniapp's built-in navigation isn't utilized. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is data persistence and state management implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements proper data persistence (uni.setStorage/getStorage) for saving assessment history and user preferences. Evaluate whether a state management solution is used for complex state (Vuex/Pinia). Deduct 5 points if offline mode isn't supported, 3 points if there's no way to retrieve previous assessments. 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 network interruption, invalid input, API failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Camera integration for car damage detection 2. VIN scanner for automatic car identification 3. Market comparison visualization). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to car assessment (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations on value display). 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 UI components/business logic/API services), unit test coverage, and build process optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no configuration for different environments (development/production). 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 mobile design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (responsive to different device sizes) 3) Professional font system (readable font sizes, clear hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic form 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 mobile interaction standards: 1) Form submission feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between steps in the assessment process 3) Clear visual cues for required fields and validation errors. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between assessment stages, and 5 points for hard-to-access primary functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/vite-vue-bazi-calculator-gregorian-lunar.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 712,
+  "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. Create a project for calculating Bazi (Chinese Eight Characters) using Vite+Vue, where users can input either Gregorian or Lunar calendar year, month, day, and hour.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Bazi calculation core algorithm correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the Chinese calendar conversion and Bazi calculation logic. Check if it accurately derives the Year, Month, Day, and Hour pillars with their respective Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches. Score 0 if the core calculation is incorrect, 5 if only basic conversion is implemented without considering special cases (leap months), and 10 if all aspects including special cases are handled correctly.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the application correctly handle both Gregorian and Lunar calendar inputs?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the application can accurately convert between Gregorian and Lunar calendars. Check if leap months in the Lunar calendar are properly handled, and if the conversion maintains date integrity across both calendar systems. Deduct 5 points if leap month handling is missing, 3 points if time zone considerations are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the input validation system comprehensive and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements comprehensive validation for user inputs (year range limitations, valid date checks). Error messages should be clear and helpful. Deduct 3 points if validation only occurs after form submission rather than real-time, 3 points if error messages are generic/unclear, and 5 points if critical validation is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the application present the Bazi results in a traditional and visually appropriate format?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the Bazi results are presented in the traditional vertical column format or another culturally appropriate arrangement. Check if the Five Elements associations are correctly displayed for each pillar. Deduct 5 points if the display format doesn't follow cultural conventions, 3 points if Five Elements are missing or incorrect. 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 out-of-range dates, invalid inputs, edge cases around midnight or lunar calendar boundaries) 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. Visual representation of the Five Elements balance 2. Compatibility analysis between different Bazi charts 3. Auspicious timing recommendations based on the chart). 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 calendar conversion algorithms 2. Function modules unrelated to Bazi calculation (e.g., unrelated fortune telling features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 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 calculation logic/view/data layers), unit test coverage for the calendar conversion algorithms, 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 properly configured for Vite+Vue. 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 both modern design principles and traditional Chinese aesthetic elements: 1) Harmonious color matching (traditional Chinese color schemes) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Appropriate typography (readability of Chinese characters prioritized). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a jarring color combination, and 5 points for poor Chinese character rendering. 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 when switching between calendar systems. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during transitions, and 5 points for hard-to-find calendar toggle functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/webpage-geographic-to-gauss-coordinates-cgcs2000.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1749,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for demonstration. Help me create a webpage that converts geographic coordinates in degrees to Gauss coordinates, referencing China's CGCS2000 system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the coordinate conversion system accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the JavaScript code correctly implements the mathematical formulas for converting geographic coordinates (latitude, longitude) to Gauss-Krüger projection coordinates in the CGCS2000 system. Check the implementation of key formulas including meridian arc length calculation, curvature radius calculation, and the specific transformation constants for CGCS2000. Score 0 if core conversion formulas are missing, 5 if basic conversion is implemented but with mathematical errors, and 10 if the conversion fully conforms to the CGCS2000 national standard.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the specific parameters of the CGCS2000 system correctly configured?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly specifies CGCS2000 parameters including semi-major axis (a=6378137m), flattening (f=1/298.257222101), central meridian selection logic, and projection zone handling (3° or 6° zones). Deduct 2 points for each incorrect parameter, 5 points if the ellipsoid parameters are wrong, and 3 points if zone calculation is improperly handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the input validation and error handling complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code validates input coordinates (latitude: -90° to 90°, longitude: -180° to 180°), handles edge cases like polar regions, and provides clear error messages. Deduct 3 points for missing boundary checks, 5 points if invalid inputs crash the application, and 2 points if error messages are unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include reverse conversion (Gauss to geographic coordinates)?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes the inverse transformation from Gauss coordinates back to geographic coordinates, allowing for bidirectional conversion. Check the implementation of the iterative algorithm typically needed for this reverse process. Score 0 if reverse conversion is not implemented, 5 if it's implemented but with significant precision issues, and 10 if it correctly implements the reverse calculation with proper convergence criteria.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (invalid coordinates, non-numeric inputs, extreme values, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should prevent calculation errors and handle edge cases effectively. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes useful additional features that enhance functionality (e.g., 1. Visualization of the converted points on a map, 2. Batch conversion capability for multiple coordinates, 3. Supporting different projection zones/central meridians, 4. History of recent conversions). 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 calculation functions, 2. Function modules unrelated to coordinate conversion (e.g., unnecessary animation effects), 3. Computationally expensive features that affect performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core conversion 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 calculation logic from UI), code organization, documentation quality, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variables are excessively used; deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments explaining the mathematical formulas; deduct 5 points if floating-point precision issues are not addressed. 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 form design with clear input/output sections. Deduct 3 points for each poorly arranged form element, 5 points for confusing input/output areas, and 5 points for illegible text or poor contrast. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user interaction intuitive and responsive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interface provides clear guidance on input format requirements, immediate feedback on conversion results, and appropriate precision display options. Deduct 5 points if coordinate input format is unclear, 3 points if conversion requires multiple unnecessary clicks, and 5 points if results are displayed without proper formatting or units. Check that conversion happens within 100ms of user input completion. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/utility_tools-calculation_tools/wechat-mini-program-calculator-code.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1184,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code where possible. WeChat Mini Program practical calculator code",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic calculator functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the calculator correctly implements all basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) with proper precedence handling. Score 0 if the core calculation logic is missing, 5 if only basic operations work but have errors with complex expressions, and 10 if all operations including parentheses and order of operations are correctly handled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are advanced calculator features included?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes scientific calculator functions (e.g., trigonometric functions, logarithms, powers, roots) and memory functions (MC, MR, M+, M-). Deduct 3 points if scientific functions are missing, 2 points if memory functions are absent, and 5 points if both are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the WeChat Mini Program architecture properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code follows WeChat Mini Program best practices with proper separation of app.js, page js files, WXML templates, and WXSS styles. Check for correct use of Page() and App() constructors, lifecycle hooks, and the global getApp() when needed. Deduct 5 points if the architecture doesn't follow Mini Program conventions and 5 points if the page rendering lifecycle is not handled correctly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the calculator handle computation history and state persistence?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the calculator saves computation history, allows review of previous calculations, and persists state across Mini Program restarts using wx.setStorageSync/wx.getStorageSync. Deduct 3 points if history is not implemented, 4 points if persistence across sessions is missing, and 3 points if there's no way to clear history. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common calculator edge cases (division by zero, overflow/underflow, extremely large numbers, precision issues with floating-point operations) and provides friendly error prompts. Code with strong robustness should validate all user inputs and gracefully handle all 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. Voice input for calculations 2. Currency/unit conversion 3. Customizable themes or layouts 4. Formula visualization). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple calculation engines) 2. Function modules unrelated to a calculator (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down calculations). 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 calculation logic/view/utilities), error handling strategies, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state is poorly managed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation of concerns between UI and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the calculator UI follows WeChat design guidelines: 1) Harmonious color matching matching with WeChat's aesthetic 2) Proper button sizing and spacing (easy touch targets ≥ 44pt) 3) Professional typography with clear number display (result font size ≥ 18px). Deduct 3 points for cluttered button layout, 5 points for poor contrast that affects readability, and 5 points for inconsistent button sizes or awkward alignments. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the calculator provides appropriate feedback: 1) Button press visual feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Calculation results appear instantly 3) Clear haptic feedback for key operations using wx.vibrateShort(). Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for delayed calculation results, and 5 points for lack of visual indication of the current operation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Utility Tools-Calculation Tools",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}