@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/exam-paper-grading-interface-auto-manual.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 766,
+  "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 purposes. Now, I want to create an exam paper grading interface that includes both automatic grading for objective questions and manual grading capabilities for subjective questions that teachers can use.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the automatic grading system for objective questions fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements automatic scoring algorithms for multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank, and matching questions. Check if it includes answer key comparison logic, partial credit calculation, and score aggregation mechanisms. Score 0 if basic auto-grading is not implemented, 5 if only simple multiple choice grading works, and 10 if all objective question types are handled with sophisticated scoring rules including partial credit and negative marking.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the manual grading interface for subjective questions professionally designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the manual grading interface provides efficient tools for teachers including: rubric-based scoring, annotation tools, comment systems, and score adjustment capabilities. Check for features like drag-and-drop scoring, keyboard shortcuts, and batch operations. Deduct 5 points if annotation tools are missing, 3 points if rubric integration is absent. Full score requires seamless teacher workflow optimization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is comprehensive exam paper management and data persistence implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system includes complete exam paper lifecycle management: paper creation/import, student response collection, grading progress tracking, and result export functionality. Evaluate data storage mechanisms, backup systems, and grade calculation accuracy. Deduct 5 points if progress cannot be saved mid-grading, 3 points if export formats are limited. Requires robust data integrity and recovery mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are advanced grading features and analytics provided?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes sophisticated features like: statistical analysis (grade distribution, question difficulty analysis), plagiarism detection for text responses, grade normalization tools, and comparative grading interfaces. Check for features like anonymous grading, multiple grader support, and grade dispute resolution workflows. Full implementation of analytics dashboard and reporting tools required for maximum score.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input data, file upload failures, network interruptions, concurrent grading conflicts, 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 grading experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted essay scoring suggestions 2. Voice-to-text annotation capabilities 3. Collaborative grading with real-time teacher coordination 4. Smart question flagging based on response patterns). 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 score calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to grading (e.g., built-in social media features) 3. Fancy effects that slow down grading workflow (e.g., excessive animations during score entry). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core grading 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 grading logic/UI components/data layers), unit test coverage for scoring algorithms, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or MVC 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 grading interface follows modern educational software design principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme suitable for long grading sessions (no more than 3 primary colors, eye-friendly palette) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear question-answer separation 3) Professional typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for eye-straining color combinations, and 5 points for chaotic paper layout organization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the grading workflow interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the grading interactions optimize teacher efficiency: 1) Score input feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between questions (300-500ms) 3) Clear visual indicators for graded/ungraded items 4) Intuitive navigation between students and questions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for laggy scrolling through long responses, and 5 points for unclear grading progress indicators.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/exam-room-arrangement-student-label-generator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1066,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that any code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create an HTML program for arranging examination rooms and generating labels for each student.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core exam room arrangement logic fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements room allocation algorithms that consider factors like room capacity, examination type/subject, and student distribution. Check if it handles edge cases (e.g., when students exceed available capacity). Score 0 if the core allocation logic is missing, 5 if basic allocation exists but lacks optimization, and 10 if it includes efficient distribution with conflict avoidance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the student label generation system complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the label generation includes all necessary student information (ID, name, exam details, room/seat number) with proper formatting and layout. Check if the system allows customization of label templates and supports batch generation. Deduct 3 points if essential information is missing, 5 points if the labels cannot be customized, and 3 points if batch processing is not supported. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is data input and validation properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the program provides user-friendly interfaces for inputting student data and room information, with appropriate validation mechanisms. Verify if it handles various input formats (manual entry, CSV/Excel import) and validates data integrity. Deduct 5 points if input validation is inadequate, 3 points if only one input method is supported, and 5 points if there's no data sanitization. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the output and export functionality comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the program provides multiple output formats for room arrangements and student labels (e.g., on-screen display, printable PDF, exportable spreadsheet). Check if pagination and print optimization are implemented for physical printing. Deduct 3 points for each missing export format, 5 points if print optimization is absent, and 5 points if the output cannot be previewed. 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 input data, browser compatibility issues, print 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. Real-time room utilization visualization 2. QR codes on labels for digital verification 3. Automated seating charts with optimal spacing). 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 coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to exam arrangement (e.g., a built-in calendar) 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 data processing/UI rendering/printing functionality), code organization, 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 separation of concerns. 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 accessible?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interface is intuitive and accessible: 1) Clear navigation between steps 2) Responsive design supporting different devices 3) Accessibility features for users with disabilities. Deduct 5 points for confusing workflow, 3 points for lack of responsiveness, and 5 points for failing basic accessibility standards (contrast, keyboard navigation, screen reader support). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/experiment-report-generator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 474,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Develop an experiment report generator with a form input area on the left (for experiment purpose, equipment, procedures, etc.) and real-time report preview on the right. Provide template selection options (Physics/Chemistry/Biology) with different CSS styles applied to each template. Support the insertion of data tables (with dynamic row and column editing) and line charts (generated based on input data). The final report should be exportable as PDF or HTML files.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the dual-pane form input and preview system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a split-screen layout with form input area on the left and real-time preview on the right through HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Check if all required form fields (experiment purpose, equipment, procedures, etc.) are present and functional with proper validation. Score 0 if the dual-pane layout is not implemented, 5 if only basic form structure exists without real-time preview, and 10 if complete bidirectional synchronization between input and preview is achieved.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the template selection and CSS styling systems properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes distinct template options for Physics/Chemistry/Biology with unique CSS styling for each template. Check if template switching is seamless and maintains data integrity. Verify that each template has appropriate visual differentiation (color schemes, typography, layout). Deduct 3 points if templates share identical styling, 5 points if template switching causes data loss, and 3 points if CSS styles are not properly encapsulated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic data table functionality fully operational?",
+      "description": "Check whether the data table implementation supports dynamic row and column editing, including add/delete operations, cell editing, and data validation. Evaluate if the table integrates properly with the report preview and maintains data consistency. Deduct 5 points if row/column operations are not supported, 3 points if cell editing is buggy, and 5 points if table data doesn't sync with preview. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the chart generation and PDF/HTML export features complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the line chart generation works correctly based on input data, with proper scaling, labeling, and visual representation. Verify that PDF and HTML export functions produce complete, formatted documents that preserve all styling and content. Deduct 5 points if charts don't render correctly, 5 points if export functions are missing or broken, and 3 points if exported files lose formatting. 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 form input, chart data errors, template switching failures, export 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 features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Auto-save functionality with version history 2. Drag-and-drop image insertion 3. Real-time collaboration features 4. Advanced chart types beyond line charts 5. Custom template creation). 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 export mechanisms doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to report generation (e.g., built-in games or social features) 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 form handling/preview rendering/export logic), component reusability, and code organization. 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 maintainable. 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 for different templates (no more than 3 primary colors per template) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear visual hierarchy 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Consistent form field styling. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor template differentiation, and 5 points for inconsistent UI components. 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) Real-time preview updates with delay ≤ 200ms 2) Smooth template switching animations 3) Responsive form interactions with immediate feedback 4) Chart rendering performance under different data loads. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for jerky animations, and 5 points for unresponsive form elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/fifth-grade-english-vocabulary-game.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1431,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to create executable code for demonstration where possible. Design a small web game for fifth-graders to practice English vocabulary.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the English vocabulary learning system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a comprehensive vocabulary learning system with word presentation, pronunciation, definition display, and interactive practice methods. Score 0 if the core vocabulary learning components are missing, 5 if only basic word display is implemented, and 10 if it includes multiple learning modes (flashcards, matching, spelling challenges, etc.) appropriate for fifth-grade level.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the game aspect engaging and age-appropriate?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes gamification elements suitable for fifth-graders such as points, levels, achievements, or competitive elements. Deduct 5 points if the game lacks progression mechanics, 3 points if there's no reward system, and 5 points if the difficulty is inappropriate for fifth-grade students. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the vocabulary content appropriate and educational?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the vocabulary content aligns with fifth-grade curriculum standards, includes appropriate difficulty progression, and offers contextual learning. Deduct 5 points if the vocabulary selection is random without educational planning, 3 points if words lack definitions or usage examples, and 5 points if the content doesn't support different learning styles. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a progress tracking and feedback system?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements progress tracking (such as words mastered, accuracy rates, improvement over time) and provides constructive feedback to learners. Deduct 5 points if there's no persistent progress tracking, 3 points if feedback is generic rather than specific to the learner's performance, and 5 points if there's no visualization of progress. 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 incorrect inputs, browser differences, unloaded resources, 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. Speech recognition for pronunciation practice 2. Adaptive difficulty based on performance 3. Social learning components like class leaderboards). 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 learning activities 2. Function modules unrelated to vocabulary learning 3. Fancy effects that distract from learning or affect performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core learning 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/view/data layers), maintainability, and organization of vocabulary data. 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 vocabulary data isn't externalized for easy updating. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet age-appropriate design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design is suitable for fifth-graders: 1) Clear, readable typography (font size ≥ 16px, high contrast) 2) Age-appropriate visual elements and color schemes 3) Simple, intuitive navigation with clear instructions. Deduct 3 points for each hard-to-read text element, 5 points for overly complex interfaces requiring reading comprehension beyond fifth-grade level, and 5 points for confusing navigation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the interaction accessible and engaging for children?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions are suitable for fifth-graders: 1) Immediate feedback on interactions 2) Forgiving interface that allows for motor skill imprecision 3) Engaging animations and sound effects that reinforce learning. Deduct 5 points for each interaction requiring fine motor skills beyond fifth-grade abilities, 3 points for delayed feedback that could confuse learners, and 5 points for lack of audio support for vocabulary learning. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/flask-vue-project-login-page-redirection-main-page.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 225,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Please help me create a Flask+Vue project that implements login page redirection to the main page.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Flask backend fully implemented with proper authentication?",
+      "description": "Examine if the Flask API endpoints are properly set up for authentication (login/register/logout), with session management or JWT token implementation. Check for password hashing, CSRF protection, and proper HTTP status code responses. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic auth is implemented but insecure, 10 if it's complete with security best practices.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Vue frontend login page correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the Vue login component includes proper form validation (required fields, email format, password strength), error handling with user feedback, and accessibility features. Form submission should prevent multiple submissions and display loading states. Deduct 3 points if validation is missing, 2 points if error handling is poor, and 2 points if the UI is not responsive. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the redirection mechanism properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the redirection after login is properly implemented with Vue Router, including route guards for protected routes, authentication state management (Vuex/Pinia), and handling of unauthorized access attempts. Check if there's proper redirection to the originally requested page after login. Deduct 5 points if route guards are missing, 3 points if state persistence is not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper integration between Flask and Vue?",
+      "description": "Check if the project structure properly separates frontend and backend, with correct API communication setup (Axios/Fetch with proper error handling). Verify if CORS is configured, proxy settings in development are correct, and if the production build setup is provided. Deduct 3 points for missing CORS handling, 3 points for improper API error handling, and 4 points if there's no production deployment configuration. 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 (invalid credentials, session expiration, network errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for input sanitization to prevent XSS, rate limiting for login attempts, and proper error logging. 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. Remember-me functionality 2. Social login integration 3. Two-factor authentication 4. Password strength meter with visual feedback 5. Personalized welcome screen after login). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant authentication mechanisms coexisting 2. Unnecessary dependencies or libraries 3. Over-engineered solutions for simple requirements. 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 (separation of concerns between components, services, and stores), code organization (following Vue and Flask best practices), error handling, and build process automation. Deduct 3 points if global state is mismanaged; deduct 3 points if the code has high duplication; deduct 2 points if environment variables are hardcoded; deduct 2 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 login and main page designs follow 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 form layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the login process and transition to the main page conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Form submission feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance and loading indicators. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between pages, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns after login. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/frontend-yang-huis-triangle-binary-tree.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 770,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code in your demonstrations. Write a program using frontend languages to create Yang Hui's triangle (Pascal's triangle) in the form of a pyramid-shaped binary tree.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core logic of Yang Hui's triangle (Pascal's triangle) correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code accurately calculates each value in the triangle using the formula where each number equals the sum of the two numbers above it (C(n,k) = C(n-1,k-1) + C(n-1,k)). Verify if the algorithm handles edge cases (first and last elements in each row are always 1). Score 0 if the core calculation logic is incorrect, 5 if it works for small examples but has edge case errors, 10 if the implementation is mathematically precise for all cases.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the pyramid-shaped binary tree visualization properly rendered?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code accurately renders the triangle in a visually correct pyramid/binary tree format with proper node connections. Check if parent-child relationships between numbers are visually represented. Deduct 5 points if nodes aren't properly aligned vertically and horizontally; deduct 3 points if the tree structure isn't clearly discernible. Score 10 points for a perfect binary tree representation with clear hierarchical visualization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the triangle dynamically generated and scalable?",
+      "description": "Verify whether users can specify the number of rows to display, and if the code can handle at least 15 rows without performance issues or layout problems. Check if the visualization can properly scale to accommodate larger numbers. Deduct 5 points if only a fixed number of rows is supported, 3 points if layout breaks with larger numbers. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are proper interactive elements implemented?",
+      "description": "Check for user controls like buttons, sliders, or input fields that allow customization of the triangle (e.g., changing the number of rows, highlighting specific numbers/patterns, etc.). Assess whether the UI provides real-time feedback when interacting with the triangle. Deduct 5 points if only static controls exist with page reloads, 3 points if interactions aren't intuitive. 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 negative inputs, extremely large inputs, non-numeric inputs, 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. Color-coding to highlight mathematical patterns 2. Animation showing how the triangle builds up row by row 3. Interactive exploration of mathematical properties like Fibonacci numbers within the triangle). 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 calculate the same values) 2. Function modules unrelated to Yang Hui's triangle (e.g., unnecessary widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down rendering). 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 rendering/user interaction), code reusability, and optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if the code is not structured in logical components; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no comments or documentation. 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 resizing or recalculation, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/full-screen-calendar-webpage-date-import.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1098,
+  "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 display. Help me create a full-screen calendar webpage that includes all 12 months. The top of the page should have a year selector, and it should be able to display workdays, rest days, and holidays by importing a JSON date sequence.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the full-screen calendar layout properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the HTML/CSS implementation creates a true full-screen calendar with proper grid layout for all 12 months. Check if the layout is responsive across different screen sizes and maintains proper aspect ratios. Score 0 if not full-screen, 5 if full-screen but with layout issues, and 10 if perfectly implemented with responsive design.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the year selector functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Examine if the year selector is implemented at the top of the page with proper event handling. Check for features like dropdown/input field, validation (preventing non-numeric or invalid years), and smooth year transitions that preserve view state. Deduct 3 points if only basic year changing works, 5 points if validation is missing, and 7 points if year transitions cause visual glitches. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the JSON date import mechanism correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the code's ability to parse and display workdays, rest days, and holidays from imported JSON data. Check for proper error handling when processing malformed JSON, the presence of a loading state, and efficient data processing. Deduct 5 points if there's no error handling, 3 points if the calendar doesn't update reactively when new JSON is loaded, and 5 points if date categories (workday/rest day/holiday) aren't visually distinct. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the date rendering and visualization accurate?",
+      "description": "Check whether the calendar correctly handles leap years, month lengths, and first day of month positioning. Verify that today's date is highlighted and dates outside the current month are visually distinguished. Deduct 5 points for each date calculation error (like incorrect leap year handling), 3 points if today's date isn't highlighted, and 5 points if the calendar grid doesn't properly align with weekdays. 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 JSON data, out of range years, browser resize events, 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. Animation effects for month transitions 2. Keyboard shortcuts for navigation 3. Interactive tooltips for holidays with descriptions). 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 date calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to calendar display (e.g., unnecessary widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down rendering). 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/date logic/state management), code reusability, and the presence of comments or documentation. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic or overly complex; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no documentation or comments explaining complex 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 for different date types (workdays, rest days, holidays) 2) Proper layout spacing between months and within date cells 3) Professional typography for month names, weekday headers, and date numbers (consistent font sizes and proper contrast). Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent visual element, 5 points for poor color choices that hinder readability, and 5 points for cluttered month layouts. 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) Year changing response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between years without jarring visual changes 3) Clear visual feedback when selecting dates or changing views. Deduct 5 points for laggy year transitions, 3 points for missing hover states on interactive elements, and 5 points if the calendar re-renders in a visually disruptive way. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/fun-english-learning-preschool-elementary-transition.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 935,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you provide is executable for demonstration purposes. Write a fun English learning program for the transition from preschool to elementary education.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the educational content age-appropriate and pedagogically sound?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the program incorporates age-appropriate vocabulary (250-500 words for 5-7 year olds), uses phonics-based learning methods, and includes basic sight words. Check for progressive difficulty levels that scaffold learning. Deduct 5 points if content is too advanced/simple for the target age group, and 5 points if fundamental language acquisition principles are ignored. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the English curriculum structure comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Verify the program covers essential language components: 1) Phonics and letter recognition 2) Basic vocabulary building 3) Simple grammar structures 4) Reading comprehension exercises. Each missing component costs 2.5 points. Assess whether the learning path has clear progression (introduces letters before words, simple sentences before complex ones). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the program implement effective interactive learning mechanisms?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes gamified learning elements such as immediate feedback loops, reward systems, progress tracking, and varied exercise types (matching, fill-in-blanks, picture-word association). Check for voice recognition/audio components for pronunciation practice. Score 10 points if all elements are present with varied interaction types, 5 points if basic interactivity exists but lacks variety, 0 points if minimal interaction is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the assessment and progress tracking system well-designed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements appropriate performance measurement (adaptive difficulty, success rate tracking, visual progress indicators, streak counters, etc.). Check for persistent storage of learning progress and the ability to generate reports for parents/teachers. Deduct 3 points if assessment lacks adaptability, 4 points if progress isn't saved between sessions, and 3 points if no reporting functionality exists. 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 incorrect input formats, unexpected user behavior, resource loading 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 learning (e.g., 1. Augmented reality alphabet recognition 2. Voice-activated interactive characters 3. Adaptive learning paths based on performance analytics). 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 learning exercises 2. Function modules unrelated to English learning (e.g., excessive mini-games without educational value) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance or distract from learning objectives. 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 educational content/UI/game mechanics), 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 overall design follows child-appropriate design principles: 1) Bright but non-straining color palette 2) Large, readable typography (min 18px font size) 3) Intuitive navigation with visual cues 4) Age-appropriate illustrations. Deduct 3 points for each visually overwhelming screen, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for confusing navigation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction engaging and developmentally appropriate?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects support child development: 1) Interaction feedback is immediate and clear 2) Animations are simple and purposeful (300-700ms) 3) Tasks respect attention spans (activities under 5 minutes) 4) Input methods account for developing motor skills. Deduct 3 points for each delayed feedback instance, 3 points for distracting animations, and 4 points for age-inappropriate interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}