@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/elementary-chinese-recitation-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 866,
+  "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. Help me create a program for elementary school Chinese language recitation practice.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core Chinese recitation functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements the primary functionality for Chinese text recitation practice, including text display, reading aloud capability, and user input validation. Score 0 if the core mechanism is missing, 5 if only basic text display is implemented, and 10 if it includes comprehensive recitation features with pronunciation guidance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is there an appropriate difficulty progression system?",
+      "description": "Check if the program includes different difficulty levels suitable for elementary school students of various grades (e.g., simpler characters for lower grades, more complex texts for higher grades). Evaluate whether the system can adaptively adjust difficulty based on student performance. Score 0 if no progression system exists, 5 if basic levels are included, and 10 if a comprehensive adaptive difficulty system is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the program include a comprehensive vocabulary management system?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements proper vocabulary management, including categorization of characters/words by difficulty, pinyin notation, and frequency of appearance in elementary curriculum. Deduct 5 points if vocabulary is not age-appropriate, 3 points if pinyin is missing or incorrect, and 3 points if there's no organization by topics or lessons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there an effective feedback and scoring mechanism?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the program provides clear feedback on student performance, tracking progress over time and highlighting areas for improvement. Check if there's a scoring system that rewards correct recitation and provides constructive feedback for mistakes. Score 0 if feedback is absent, 5 if basic scoring exists, and 10 if comprehensive performance analytics are included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid user inputs, unexpected pronunciation attempts, system resource limitations) 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 learning experience (e.g., 1. Animated character stroke order demonstrations 2. Gamification elements like achievement badges 3. Voice recognition for pronunciation correction). 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 text-to-speech engines running simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to Chinese language learning (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that distract from learning). 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 learning content/view/assessment components), 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 child-friendly design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design is appropriate for elementary school students: 1) Child-friendly color scheme with adequate contrast 2) Age-appropriate visual elements and typography (larger font size ≥ 16px, clear character display) 3) Intuitive layout with consistent navigation elements. Deduct 3 points for each hard-to-read text element, 5 points for visually overwhelming interfaces, and 5 points for unintuitive controls that would confuse children. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the learning interaction engaging and age-appropriate?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interaction design is suitable for elementary school students: 1) Clear instructions with audio cues 2) Appropriate reward mechanisms for correct recitations 3) Patience-oriented interaction flow with proper timing for young learners. Deduct 5 points if instructions are unclear, 3 points for lack of positive reinforcement, and 5 points for interactions requiring fine motor skills beyond the target age group. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/elementary-english-text-learning-coze-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1607,
+  "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. How should I create a tool for elementary school English text learning using Coze?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the elementary English learning tool conceptually well-defined?",
+      "description": "Review whether the solution clearly defines the core learning objectives for elementary English (vocabulary, reading comprehension, phonics, etc.). Evaluate if the content is age-appropriate and follows pedagogical principles for language acquisition. Score 0 if no clear learning objectives are defined, 5 if basic objectives exist but lack depth, and 10 if comprehensive learning goals with progression paths are established.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Coze bot configuration fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete Coze bot setup instructions, including persona definition, knowledge base configuration, and prompt engineering. Deduct 5 points if the bot configuration lacks educational scaffolding, and 3 points if the bot doesn't include error handling for child interactions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are interactive learning modules designed for the tool?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the solution implements engaging interactive components (quizzes, flashcards, story completion exercises, etc.) using Coze's capabilities. Check if the modules include proper feedback mechanisms for young learners. Deduct 5 points if interactivity is limited to basic Q&A, 3 points if feedback is generic rather than personalized. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there an appropriate difficulty progression system?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the tool includes a system for adapting content difficulty based on learner progress (vocabulary complexity increases, sentence structure advancement, etc.). Examine if there's logic for tracking student progress and adjusting content accordingly. Deduct 5 points if there's no adaptation mechanism, 3 points if progression lacks smoothness. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common issues in educational technology (such as unclear student inputs, repetitive questions, off-topic interactions, etc.) and provide appropriate guidance. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively redirect learners back to educational objectives, 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 solution includes surprise features that enhance the learning experience (e.g., 1. Animated character rewards for achievements 2. Voice interaction capabilities 3. Personalized learning paths based on interests). 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. Overlapping educational modules that teach the same concept in similar ways 2. Features unrelated to elementary English learning (e.g., advanced grammar unsuitable for the age group) 3. Overly complex interactions that could confuse young learners. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core learning functions are interfered with by redundant features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separating content/interaction logic/user progression tracking), reusability of educational components, and documentation quality. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if code organization makes content updates difficult; deduct 5 points if configuration lacks comments explaining pedagogical choices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet child-friendly design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows child-UX principles: 1) Age-appropriate visuals with clear, simple layouts 2) Large, readable text (minimum 16px, rounded friendly fonts) 3) Consistent, intuitive navigation with visual cues. Deduct 3 points for each complex menu structure, 5 points for overwhelming visual elements, and 5 points for inadequate spacing between interactive elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the learning interaction engaging and encouraging?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions support positive learning behaviors: 1) Immediate, constructive feedback for answers 2) Celebration of achievements with appropriate rewards 3) Gentle, encouraging correction for mistakes. Deduct 5 points for delayed or missing feedback, 3 points for discouraging messaging, and 5 points for lack of progression visibility. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/energy-storage-hr-information-webpage.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1691,
+  "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 whenever possible. As an experienced web developer, I need you to create a webpage that collects information about energy storage from across the internet each week, organizes it by category, and presents it on the webpage for my learning and reference. Since I work in human resources, I would also like to include knowledge related to human resources in the energy storage field. The page should be simple and clear.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the web scraping and data collection functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes robust web scraping mechanisms to collect energy storage information from various sources. Check if it handles different website structures, uses proper request throttling to avoid IP blocking, and implements error handling for failed requests. Score 0 if no scraping functionality exists, 5 if basic scraping is implemented but lacks robustness, and 10 if comprehensive scraping with multiple source handling is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the weekly information categorization system well-designed?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a proper categorization system for energy storage information (e.g., battery technologies, grid storage, EV applications, policy updates) and specifically includes HR-related categories (e.g., job trends, salary benchmarks, required skills). Assess if the categorization is dynamic or static, and whether it can adapt to changing content patterns. Deduct 3 points if the categories are hardcoded without flexibility, and 5 points if HR-specific categories are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the data storage and update mechanism efficient?",
+      "description": "Review how the collected information is stored and updated weekly. Check if the solution uses an appropriate database or storage method (localStorage, IndexedDB, or server-side database), implements data versioning, and has mechanisms to prevent duplicate entries. Assess whether the update process is automated or manual. Deduct 5 points if there's no persistence mechanism, and 3 points if the weekly update process requires manual intervention. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the user interface presentation clear, simple, and effective?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the webpage has a clean, minimalist design as requested, with clear navigation, readable typography, and logical information hierarchy. Check if the HR-specific information is visually distinguished from other energy storage categories. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for poor readability (small fonts, low contrast), and 5 points for overly complex navigation structures. 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 network failures during scraping, malformed data from sources, 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. AI-powered summary of weekly trends 2. Visualization of energy storage market data 3. Personalized content recommendations based on reading history). 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 sorting mechanisms that do the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to energy storage information (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow page loading). 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 data fetching/processing/presentation layers), code readability, and maintainability. 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 error logging or debugging mechanism. 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 scrolling through weekly information, and 5 points for hard-to-find filtering or search functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/english-dictation-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 492,
+  "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. Build an English dictation system. After the user clicks to play an audio, they need to manually input the phrase or sentence word by word based on what they hear. The system detects spelling or grammar errors, displays the correct example sentence alongside the user's errors, and provides correction suggestions.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the audio playback system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements proper audio controls using HTML5 Audio API or Web Audio API. Check if it includes play/pause functionality, replay options, and speed control for different learning levels. Score 0 if audio playback is not implemented, 5 if basic playback exists but lacks controls, and 10 if the implementation includes advanced features like speed adjustment, section repeat, and proper error handling when audio fails to load.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the text input and comparison system accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the system's ability to capture user input in real-time, compare it against the correct text, and identify errors. Check whether it properly handles capitalization, punctuation, spacing, and special characters. Deduct 3 points if it doesn't handle capitalization properly, 3 points if punctuation comparison is flawed, and 5 points if the comparison algorithm produces false positives/negatives. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the error detection and correction suggestion system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check if the system identifies spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, and word choice issues. Evaluate whether the correction suggestions are relevant and helpful. The system should differentiate between minor typos and significant errors. Deduct 5 points if only basic spell checking exists without grammar checking, 3 points if suggestions are generic rather than contextual, and 5 points if the system fails to provide explanations for corrections. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a comprehensive dictionary/database with example sentences?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of the word database or API integration. Assess whether the system contains or accesses a robust dictionary of words with example sentences, pronunciations, and definitions. Check if the database includes various difficulty levels and topics. Deduct 5 points if the dictionary is limited (fewer than 1000 words), 3 points if example sentences are missing, and 5 points if the system doesn't categorize words by difficulty level. 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, audio loading failures, server connection 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 learning experience (e.g., 1. Voice recognition for spoken practice 2. Personalized difficulty adjustment based on user performance 3. Visual representation of progress over time 4. Gamification elements like streaks or achievements). 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 spell-checkers running simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to language learning (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during typing). 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 audio handling/text processing/UI display 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) Audio playback response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Error highlighting appears within 300ms of submission 3) Clear visual guidance between different learning stages. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between dictation states, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/english-teacher-word-wheel-web-code.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 260,
+  "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. I am an English teacher and need you to create a word wheel using web code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the word wheel core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a functional word wheel through HTML/CSS/JavaScript, including circular letter arrangement, center letter(s), word formation validation, and scoring system. Score 0 if basic wheel structure is missing, 5 if only static display is implemented, and 10 if complete interactive word formation with validation is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the word validation and dictionary system properly integrated?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes a comprehensive word validation system with dictionary lookup, duplicate word prevention, and minimum word length requirements. Two-way validation between user input and dictionary database is required. Deduct 5 points if word validation is missing, and 3 points if duplicate detection is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the educational progression and difficulty system designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the word wheel includes progressive difficulty levels, hints system, and educational feedback mechanisms suitable for English teaching. Check for features like word definitions, usage examples, or difficulty categorization. Deduct 5 points if no educational features are present, and 3 points if progression system is basic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete game state management and persistence implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete game state management, including score tracking, progress saving, session management, and game statistics for educational assessment. Deduct 5 points if state persistence is not implemented, and 3 points if scoring system is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with educational tracking features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid letter combinations, network interruption for dictionary lookup, user input errors, 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 educational features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the learning experience (e.g., 1. Pronunciation audio for found words 2. Word etymology or root analysis 3. Adaptive difficulty based on student performance 4. Collaborative word finding modes). Add 3 points for each practical innovative educational 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 scoring systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to word learning (e.g., unrelated mini-games) 3. Fancy effects that affect educational focus (e.g., distracting animations during word formation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core educational 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 game logic/UI/dictionary layers), code organization, and maintainability for educational software. 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 code structure is not suitable for educational customization. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet educational software standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows educational interface principles: 1) Clear, readable typography suitable for students (font size ≥ 16px, high contrast) 2) Intuitive color coding for educational feedback (correct/incorrect states) 3) Accessible design following WCAG guidelines 4) Clean layout that focuses attention on learning content. Deduct 3 points for each accessibility issue, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for confusing educational interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the interactive experience smooth and educationally appropriate?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactive elements support effective learning: 1) Immediate feedback for word formation attempts ≤ 200ms 2) Clear visual indicators for valid/invalid selections 3) Smooth letter selection and word building process 4) Appropriate audio-visual feedback for educational reinforcement. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without proper feedback, 3 points for confusing selection states, and 5 points for interactions that hinder the learning flow. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/english-vocabulary-flashcards-for-memorization.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 356,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for display purposes. Identify the content in the file, and based on the English words and translations, create an HTML page for word flashcards to assist with vocabulary memorization.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic flashcard structure implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Check if the HTML structure includes front and back sides of flashcards with proper vocabulary display. Look for word/translation pairs being properly separated and styled. Score 0 if basic card structure is missing, 5 if basic structure exists but lacks proper separation of front/back sides, and 10 if flashcards properly display both words and translations with clear visual distinction.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is there a working flashcard flip mechanism?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes JavaScript functionality to flip cards and reveal translations. The mechanism should respond to user interaction (click/tap) with smooth transitions. Deduct 5 points if the flip occurs without animation, 3 points if the flip is not optimized for mobile devices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a vocabulary management system?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code provides methods to add, edit, remove, or organize vocabulary items. Look for data structures that properly store word pairs and allow for persistence (localStorage or similar). Deduct 5 points if there's no way to add new words, 3 points if editing existing items isn't supported. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are there learning optimization features implemented?",
+      "description": "Check for features that enhance learning effectiveness such as spaced repetition algorithms, difficulty tracking, progress visualization, or review scheduling. Score 0 if no learning features exist, 5 if basic revisiting mechanism is present, 10 if a comprehensive learning system that adapts to user progress is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty vocabulary list, invalid inputs, connection issues for online dictionaries) 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. Audio pronunciation integration 2. Images associated with vocabulary 3. Quiz mode or gamification elements). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to display definitions) 2. Function modules unrelated to vocabulary learning (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 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 UI components/data management/user interaction), code reuse, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation between data and presentation. 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) Card flip animation between 300-500ms 2) Clear visual cues for interactive elements 3) Consistent feedback for user actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jumpy animations, and 5 points for hard-to-recognize interactive elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/english-word-quiz-program-elementary-grades.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1649,
+  "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. Create a simple English word quiz program that covers all the new vocabulary from elementary grades 1-6 (Hebei Education Edition), including translations, phonetic symbols, and pronunciation.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the vocabulary database comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes a complete vocabulary database covering grades 1-6 (Hebei Education Edition), with each word containing English spelling, Chinese translation, phonetic symbols, and pronunciation files. Check if the vocabulary is properly categorized by grade levels and topics. Score 0 if vocabulary data is missing or incomplete, 5 if only basic words are included without proper categorization, and 10 if all grade-level vocabulary is comprehensively organized with complete metadata.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the quiz modes and question types diversified?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the program implements multiple quiz formats including English-to-Chinese translation, Chinese-to-English translation, phonetic symbol recognition, spelling completion, and listening comprehension. Check if difficulty progression is implemented and adaptive question selection based on user performance exists. Deduct 3 points if less than 4 question types are implemented, deduct 5 points if no difficulty adaptation mechanism exists. Full score requires at least 5 different quiz modes with intelligent question generation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the pronunciation and phonetic system accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes accurate phonetic symbol display (IPA format) and high-quality pronunciation playback functionality. Evaluate if the pronunciation uses native speaker audio or high-quality TTS, and whether phonetic symbols are properly rendered with correct fonts. Deduct 5 points if pronunciation quality is poor or phonetic symbols are incorrectly displayed, deduct 3 points if audio loading is slow (>2 seconds). Full score requires crystal-clear pronunciation and perfectly formatted phonetic symbols.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the learning progress tracking and analytics system complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the program implements comprehensive progress tracking including accuracy rates, learning streaks, weak word identification, and performance analytics by grade/topic. Check if data persistence is implemented with local storage or database integration. Deduct 5 points if no progress tracking exists, deduct 3 points if data cannot be saved between sessions, deduct 2 points if analytics are basic without actionable insights. Full score requires detailed learning analytics with visual progress reports.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as missing audio files, network interruption, invalid user input, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like corrupted data, audio playback failures, and unexpected user interactions, 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 learning experience (e.g., 1. Gamification elements like points/badges/leaderboards 2. Speech recognition for pronunciation practice 3. Spaced repetition algorithm 4. Interactive word games/mini-games 5. Social features for competition). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points). Features must be functional and add genuine educational value.",
+      "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 scoring systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to vocabulary learning (e.g., built-in calculator or unrelated games) 3. Overly complex animations that distract from learning. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core learning functions are interfered with by redundant code or if the interface becomes cluttered.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating quiz logic/vocabulary data/UI components), code organization, and maintainability. Check for proper separation of concerns, reusable components, and clean architecture. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if code is monolithic without proper structure; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if naming conventions are inconsistent. The full score requires clean, well-organized, and maintainable code structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet educational software standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design is child-friendly and educationally appropriate: 1) Clear, readable fonts suitable for young learners (minimum 16px for primary content) 2) Intuitive navigation with large, easily clickable buttons 3) Appropriate color scheme that aids learning without causing eye strain 4) Proper information hierarchy and layout spacing. Deduct 3 points for each confusing interface element, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for non-intuitive navigation. The full score requires a polished, professional educational interface.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and educationally effective?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions support effective learning: 1) Immediate feedback on answers (≤200ms response time) 2) Clear visual/audio cues for correct/incorrect responses 3) Smooth transitions between questions (300-500ms) 4) Intuitive input methods for different question types 5) Proper pacing that allows for learning without rushing. Deduct 5 points for each delayed or missing feedback, 3 points for confusing interaction patterns, and 5 points for poor learning flow design. The full score requires seamless, educationally sound interactions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/enterprise-digital-transformation-maturity-assessment.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1041,
+  "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. Develop a small application for assessing enterprise digital transformation maturity, preferably one that can be operated by scanning a QR code, and provide an operation guide.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the digital transformation assessment functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a comprehensive assessment system with properly defined maturity dimensions (e.g., technology, people, process, customer experience), scoring mechanics, and result interpretation. Score 0 if the core assessment logic is missing, 5 if only basic scoring is implemented without proper dimensions, and 10 if the assessment framework follows industry standards (like CMMI or other recognized maturity models) with clear dimension definitions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the QR code scanning and mobile responsiveness properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the application includes a functional QR code generation system and properly implements the scanning mechanism (either using device camera APIs or a third-party library like jsQR). Verify if the application is fully responsive across different mobile devices (iOS/Android) with appropriate viewport settings and flexible layouts. Deduct 5 points if QR code scanning fails on common devices, and 3 points if the mobile layout breaks on standard screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is data storage and result persistence implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the application provides proper data persistence options (localStorage, sessionStorage, server-side storage, exportable reports). Check if assessment results can be saved, retrieved, and compared over time to track maturity progress. Deduct 5 points if results cannot be saved between sessions, and 3 points if there's no way to export or share results. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the visualization of assessment results effective and insightful?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the application presents results using appropriate data visualizations (radar charts, heatmaps, progress indicators) that effectively communicate maturity levels across different dimensions. Check if benchmarking against industry standards or peers is included. Deduct 5 points for basic text-only results, 3 points for non-interactive visualizations, and 2 points if visualization lacks comparative context. 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 offline usage, input validation, handling incomplete assessments, 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. AI-powered recommendations based on assessment results 2. Integration with business KPIs to show correlation 3. Peer comparison with anonymized industry data). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple assessment frameworks without clear purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to digital transformation assessment (e.g., unrelated analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations that slow down the application). 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 assessment logic/view/data layers), proper error handling, and code maintainability. 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 separation between the 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 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) Question transitions feel natural and intuitive 2) Loading states provide feedback during processing 3) Clear visual progress indicators during the assessment. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between assessment sections, and 5 points for confusing navigation or unclear next steps. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}