@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/html-css-javascript-learning-tool-live-editor.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 630,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure the code you generate is executable. Develop a programming knowledge learning tool that displays HTML/CSS/JavaScript concepts, with a real-time editing area below that allows users to input code and see the results (such as generated HTML structures or CSS styles) previewed immediately alongside.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the real-time preview functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a seamless real-time preview system that updates as users type, with minimal delay (<100ms). Check for proper event listeners (e.g., 'input' events), debounce mechanisms for performance, and accurate rendering of HTML/CSS/JavaScript results. Score 0 if preview is not implemented, 5 if basic preview exists but has significant delay/bugs, 10 if preview works flawlessly with immediate feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the HTML/CSS/JavaScript concept display system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the tool provides clear explanations of key web development concepts, with well-structured categories and subcategories. Check for inclusion of basic concepts (e.g., HTML structure, CSS selectors, JavaScript variables) and advanced topics (e.g., CSS grid, JavaScript promises). Deduct 2 points for each major conceptual area missing, 1 point for incomplete explanations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the code editor functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the code editor for essential features: syntax highlighting, line numbers, auto-indentation, and proper handling of tab characters. Examine whether it supports multiple language modes (HTML/CSS/JavaScript) with appropriate highlighting for each. Deduct 3 points if syntax highlighting is missing, 2 points for lack of line numbers, 2 points for no auto-indentation, and 3 points if language switching is not supported or buggy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there proper error handling and debugging support?",
+      "description": "Check whether the tool provides meaningful error messages when user code contains syntax errors or runtime exceptions. Verify that errors are displayed in a user-friendly manner with appropriate highlighting of problematic code sections. Look for features like console output integration and debugging hints. Deduct 5 points if errors are not caught or displayed, 3 points if error messages are cryptic/unhelpful, and 2 points if line references are missing. 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 malicious code injection attempts, extremely large code inputs, infinite loops in user code, etc.) and provide containment or graceful failure. Code with strong robustness should use sandboxing techniques like iframes with proper security attributes or Web Workers for JavaScript execution. Give 10 points for comprehensive protection, 5 points for basic safeguards, and 0 points if no protection mechanisms exist.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the learning experience (e.g., 1. Code snippets library for quick learning 2. Interactive challenges with automated validation 3. Visualization of DOM structure or CSS box model 4. Split view for before/after code changes). Add 2.5 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 preview rendering engines) 2. Function modules unrelated to code learning (e.g., built-in games unrelated to programming) 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 UI components/editor logic/preview rendering), code reusability, and appropriate design patterns. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if appropriate design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation of concerns between different functional components. 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 learning tool design principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy with concept display prominently separated from code input/output areas 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (monospace fonts for code, sans-serif for instructions, with proper size contrast). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor contrast between code and instructions, and 5 points for chaotic layout that hampers the learning experience. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects facilitate learning: 1) Preview updates within 200ms of code changes 2) Smooth transitions when switching between concept categories 3) Clear visual focus guidance for the currently selected concept or code section. Deduct 5 points for sluggish preview updates, 3 points for jarring transitions between views, and 5 points for confusing navigation that makes it difficult to track learning progress. Consider whether resize handles exist for adjusting the ratio between editor and preview. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/html-demo-visualize-automotive-knowledge.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1646,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Use an HTML demo to visualize basic knowledge in the automotive field.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the automotive knowledge visualization comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the HTML demo covers key automotive concepts (e.g., engine types, car parts, drivetrain systems, safety features). Score 0 if minimal content is presented, 5 if basic concepts are covered, and 10 if comprehensive automotive knowledge with proper categorization is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the interactive visualization effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the demo includes interactive elements like hoverable components, clickable car parts, expandable information sections, or animated demonstrations of automotive systems. Deduct 5 points if only static content is presented. Award full points if the visualization allows users to interact with multiple automotive concepts in an intuitive manner.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the technical accuracy of automotive information maintained?",
+      "description": "Verify that the automotive information presented is technically accurate. Check for correct terminology, accurate descriptions of automotive systems, and proper relationships between components. Deduct 3 points for each significant factual error. The visualization should maintain educational value through technical precision.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the visual representation clear and instructive?",
+      "description": "Assess whether diagrams, illustrations or models clearly represent automotive concepts. Evaluate if visual aids enhance understanding rather than causing confusion. Check for proper labeling, appropriate use of colors for differentiation, and logical visual hierarchy. Deduct 3 points if visuals are unclear or misleading.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, resizing windows, touch vs. mouse interactions) and provide responsive design. Code with strong robustness should degrade gracefully across devices, 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. 3D interactive car models 2. Real-time physics simulations of automotive systems 3. Comparison tools for different vehicles or components). 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 explanations of the same automotive concepts 2. Function modules unrelated to automotive knowledge 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core educational content is obscured by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/view/interaction layers), code organization, and performance optimization. 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 resource loading isn't optimized for performance. 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 animations, 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/html-math-quiz-generator.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1692,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create an HTML-based mathematics calculation quiz generator.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the mathematics calculation quiz generation system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements multiple types of mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) with configurable difficulty levels and question quantity. Check if it includes proper random number generation, fraction handling, and decimal precision control. Score 0 if only basic addition is implemented, 5 if 2-3 operation types are covered, and 10 if all four operations with advanced features (parentheses, mixed operations) are fully included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the answer validation and scoring mechanism accurately implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system includes real-time answer validation, immediate feedback display, and comprehensive scoring calculation. Evaluate if it handles edge cases like decimal precision, negative numbers, and invalid inputs. Deduct 5 points if validation logic has mathematical errors, and 3 points if scoring doesn't account for time factors or difficulty weighting. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the quiz configuration and customization system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can customize quiz parameters including difficulty level, operation types, number range, question quantity, and time limits. Check if configurations are properly validated and applied. Deduct 5 points if configuration changes don't take effect immediately, and 3 points if parameter validation is missing. Give 10 points if fully customizable with preset difficulty modes.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete quiz session management and progress tracking implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete session lifecycle management with features like quiz timer, progress indicator, question navigation, and results summary. Evaluate if it provides detailed performance analytics and history tracking. Deduct 5 points if session state is not properly maintained, and 3 points if progress indicators are inaccurate. Give 10 points if fully implemented with comprehensive analytics.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid mathematical expressions, division by zero, extremely large numbers, malformed user 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 learning experience (e.g., 1. Adaptive difficulty adjustment based on performance 2. Mathematical concept explanations for wrong answers 3. Achievement badges and progress gamification 4. Step-by-step solution breakdown). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to mathematics quiz (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect calculation performance (e.g., heavy animations during quiz sessions). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core quiz 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 quiz logic/UI components/data management), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper separation of concerns is not implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if mathematical calculations are not properly abstracted into reusable functions. 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) Clean and educational-appropriate color scheme (avoiding distracting colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear question-answer separation 3) Readable typography for mathematical expressions (proper font size ≥ 16px for questions). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor mathematical notation display, and 5 points for confusing layout that hinders learning. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactive elements conform to educational UX principles: 1) Immediate feedback on answer submission ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between questions 300-500ms 3) Clear visual indicators for correct/incorrect answers 4) Intuitive navigation controls. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without proper feedback, 3 points for delayed mathematical expression rendering, and 5 points if key functions like 'Next Question' or 'Submit' are hard to locate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/html-mbti-webpage-with-images.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1315,
+  "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 when possible. Write an HTML webpage code with MBTI as the theme, and include images.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the MBTI theme fully implemented in the webpage?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the webpage effectively incorporates MBTI concepts, including clear explanations of the 4 key dichotomies (E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P) and 16 personality types. Score 0 if MBTI concepts are absent, 5 if only basic mention without explanation, and 10 if comprehensive MBTI framework is presented with personality descriptions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are appropriate images incorporated for MBTI visualization?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes relevant images for MBTI types (such as type icons, characteristic illustrations, or representative figures). Images should have proper alt text, responsive sizing, and meaningful correlation to MBTI content. Deduct 3 points if images are unrelated to MBTI, 3 points if alt text is missing, and 5 points if no images are included at all.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there interactive MBTI functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the webpage includes interactive elements like personality quizzes, type comparison tools, or dynamic type descriptions. Score 0 if no interactivity exists, 5 if basic interactivity (like simple hover effects) is present, and 10 if comprehensive interactive features (like a working MBTI assessment) are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is personalized content based on MBTI types provided?",
+      "description": "Review whether the webpage offers customized content based on MBTI types, such as career recommendations, relationship compatibility, or personal development advice. Deduct 5 points if personalization is completely absent, and 3 points if only shallow personalization exists. Award full 10 points if deep, research-backed personalized content is presented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as missing images, different screen sizes, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide fallback solutions. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Visual type matching animations 2. Interactive type compatibility charts 3. Personality archetype visualizations). 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 the same type descriptions) 2. Function modules unrelated to MBTI (e.g., unrelated social media feeds) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down page loading). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core MBTI content is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating content/style/behavior), semantic HTML usage, CSS organization, and JavaScript best practices. Deduct 5 points if CSS is inline rather than in a stylesheet; deduct 5 points if the code contains duplicated functions or styles; deduct 5 points if there's no responsive design implementation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/html-mid-term-review-questions-industrial-revolutions-scores-rankings.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1286,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create an HTML page that generates 50 review questions for a mid-term exam on the first and second Industrial Revolutions, with functionality to display scores and rankings.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the question generation implemented completely?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code successfully generates 50 distinct, historically accurate questions about the first and second Industrial Revolutions. Questions should cover diverse aspects (technological innovations, social impacts, key figures, etc.). Score 0 if fewer than 30 questions are generated, 5 if 30-49 questions with limited variety, and 10 if all 50 questions are generated with good historical depth and variety.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the question presentation interface well-designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the questions are displayed in a clear, readable format with appropriate spacing and organization. Interface should include question numbering, multiple-choice options clearly distinguished, and navigation controls. Deduct 5 points if questions are displayed in a cluttered format, 3 points if question navigation is difficult, and 2 points if the text is poorly formatted or hard to read. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the answer submission and validation mechanism functional?",
+      "description": "Verify that the code correctly tracks user responses, validates answers against correct solutions, and prevents submission of incomplete tests. Examine if it handles edge cases like double submissions or changing answers. Deduct 5 points if validation logic has flaws, 3 points if there's no prevention of blank submissions, and 2 points if answer changes aren't properly tracked. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the scoring and ranking features properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code accurately calculates exam scores based on correct answers and displays them clearly. The ranking system should store and display multiple user results in order of performance. Deduct 5 points if score calculation contains errors, 3 points if the ranking display is incomplete or inaccurate, and 2 points if there's no persistence of ranking data between sessions. 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, browser compatibility issues, refreshing the page mid-exam, 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. Timer functionality to simulate exam conditions 2. Question difficulty classification 3. Progress visualization 4. Performance analytics showing strengths/weaknesses). 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 scoring systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the exam (e.g., unrelated animations or media) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy visual effects that slow 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 question data/UI rendering/scoring logic), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or proper design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation 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 seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Question transition smoothness 2) Feedback when selecting answers 3) Clear visual indication of correct/incorrect answers. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between questions, and 5 points for confusing user interface states (e.g., unclear if an answer was submitted). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/html-parse-math-formulas-marked-library.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1144,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code in your demonstration. Write an HTML page that can parse mathematical formulas using the marked library.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic HTML structure properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the HTML page has proper DOCTYPE, head, body sections, responsive meta tags, and appropriate CSS styling. Verify if there's proper semantic structure (headers, main content, etc.). Deduct 3 points if doctype/meta tags are missing, 3 points for improper semantic structure, and 2 points for lack of responsive design considerations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the marked library correctly integrated?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the marked library is properly imported (via CDN or npm), initialized with appropriate configuration, and called correctly in the code. Check if the latest stable version is used and if there are fallback mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if the library is not properly loaded, 3 points if an outdated version is used without justification, and 2 points if there's no error handling for library loading failures. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is mathematical formula parsing functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify that the code integrates a math rendering library (like MathJax or KaTeX) alongside marked for formula rendering. Check if both inline formulas (e.g., $y=x^2$) and block formulas (e.g., $$\\int_0^\\infty e^{-x^2} dx = \\frac{\\sqrt{\\pi}}{2}$$) are supported. Deduct 5 points if only one formula type is supported, 8 points if formula rendering is broken/incomplete, and 10 points if math formula parsing is completely missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a proper user interface for input and rendering?",
+      "description": "Assess if the page provides text input areas for entering markdown with math formulas and separate display areas for rendered output. Check if there's real-time preview or an explicit render button with proper event handling. Deduct 3 points for lack of clear input/output separation, 3 points for missing real-time/button-triggered rendering, and 4 points if the interface is not intuitive or lacks proper labels/instructions. 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 LaTeX syntax, script injection attempts, or rendering errors) and provide friendly error messages. 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. Formula syntax highlighting 2. Export to PDF/image options 3. Formula templates or quick insertion buttons 4. Dark/light mode toggle). 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 markdown parsers running simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to formula parsing (e.g., unnecessary media players) 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 parsing logic/view/event handlers), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if proper design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no comments for complex logic sections. 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) Rendering feedback delay ≤ 200ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback during formula processing. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for noticeable lag during real-time rendering, and 5 points for confusing or misleading interaction patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/html-webpage-gravity-falls.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1578,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be careful to ensure the code you generate is executable for display. Create an HTML webpage about Gravity Falls.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Gravity Falls theme authentically represented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the webpage accurately captures the Gravity Falls aesthetic through proper use of the show's visual elements, color palette (forest greens, mystery blues, rustic browns), and thematic content. Check for inclusion of iconic elements like the Mystery Shack, Bill Cipher symbols, journal pages, or woodland mystery themes. Score 0 if generic content with no show connection, 5 if basic theme elements present, and 10 if fully immersive Gravity Falls atmosphere with authentic visual references.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the content structure comprehensive and well-organized?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the webpage includes comprehensive Gravity Falls content such as character profiles (Dipper, Mabel, Grunkle Stan, etc.), episode guides, mystery elements, or interactive features. Check for proper HTML semantic structure with appropriate headings, sections, and navigation. Deduct 3 points if content is superficial, 5 points if navigation is confusing or missing, and 3 points if semantic HTML structure is poor. Full score requires rich, well-structured content.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are interactive elements and animations implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Check whether the webpage includes engaging interactive features that enhance the Gravity Falls experience, such as hover effects on mystery symbols, clickable journal entries, character animations, or hidden easter eggs. Evaluate JavaScript implementation for smooth interactions. Deduct 5 points if interactions are buggy or non-functional, 3 points if animations are choppy, and 5 points if no interactive elements exist. Full score requires polished, theme-appropriate interactivity.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the multimedia integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether images, videos, audio, or other media elements are properly integrated and optimized. Check for appropriate alt text, proper file formats, responsive image handling, and loading performance. Verify that media enhances the Gravity Falls theme rather than generic placeholder content. Deduct 3 points for missing alt text, 5 points for poor loading performance, and 3 points for inappropriate or low-quality media. Full score requires optimized, thematic multimedia integration.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust and error-free?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common issues such as missing images, JavaScript errors, responsive breakpoints, and browser compatibility. Code should include proper error handling, fallbacks for missing resources, and graceful degradation. Strong robustness earns 10 points. Average robustness with some error handling gets 5 points. No error handling or frequent crashes gets 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there innovative features that enhance user engagement?",
+      "description": "Check for creative features that go beyond basic webpage functionality, such as: 1) Interactive mystery-solving elements 2) Character voice clips or sound effects 3) Hidden cipher puzzles 4) Parallax scrolling effects 5) Interactive timeline or episode navigator. Add 3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points). Features must be functional and add genuine value to the user experience.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant or unnecessary features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check for three types of redundancy: 1) Duplicate functionality (multiple navigation systems) 2) Off-theme elements unrelated to Gravity Falls 3) Performance-heavy effects that don't serve the content (excessive animations, auto-playing videos). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found. Deduct 10 points directly if redundant code significantly impacts core functionality or page performance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code demonstrate professional engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization, proper HTML/CSS/JavaScript structure, commenting, and maintainability. Check for separation of concerns (HTML structure, CSS styling, JavaScript behavior), proper file organization, and clean code practices. Deduct 5 points for inline styles or scripts mixing concerns; deduct 5 points for code duplication over 30%; deduct 5 points for poor naming conventions or lack of comments. Full score requires professional-grade code structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the visual design meet professional aesthetic standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate overall design quality following modern web design principles: 1) Cohesive color scheme reflecting Gravity Falls palette (no more than 4 primary colors) 2) Proper typography hierarchy and readability (minimum 16px body text, 1.4+ line height) 3) Consistent spacing and alignment (preferably 8px grid system) 4) Professional layout composition. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual section, 5 points for poor color harmony, and 5 points for illegible text or chaotic layout.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user experience smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether interactions feel natural and responsive: 1) Page load time under 3 seconds 2) Smooth scrolling and transitions (300-500ms duration) 3) Clear visual feedback for interactive elements 4) Intuitive navigation flow 5) Mobile responsiveness. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive interaction, 3 points for jarring transitions or layout shifts, and 5 points for poor mobile experience or difficult-to-find navigation elements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/html-website-configure-delta-game-weapons.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1796,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create a website using HTML that helps users independently configure cost-effective weapons in the Delta game.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the weapon configuration system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements weapon categories, attributes, and attachment systems through HTML/JavaScript. Check if it includes comprehensive weapon stats (damage, accuracy, range, etc.), attachment compatibility validation, and real-time stat calculation when configurations change. Score 0 if core weapon data structure is missing, 5 if only basic weapon display is implemented, and 10 if complete configuration system with all Delta game weapons and attachments is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the cost-effectiveness analysis algorithm implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system includes intelligent cost-performance ratio calculations based on weapon price, performance metrics, and user preferences. Evaluate if it provides ranking algorithms, comparison matrices, and budget optimization suggestions. Deduct 5 points if price-performance calculation is overly simplistic, and 3 points if no comparative analysis between different configurations is provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the interactive configuration interface design user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the configuration interface provides intuitive drag-and-drop functionality, real-time preview, and step-by-step guidance. Check if users can easily browse weapon categories, apply filters, and see immediate feedback on stat changes. Deduct 5 points if the configuration process requires more than 3 clicks for basic operations. Check whether save/load preset configurations are available. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the weapon data management system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete weapon database with accurate Delta game data, including all weapon classes, attachment compatibility matrices, and current market prices. Evaluate if data is structured efficiently and updates can be managed easily. Deduct 5 points if weapon data is incomplete or inaccurate, and 3 points if no data validation mechanism exists. Give 10 points if fully implemented with real-time data sync capability.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid weapon combinations, missing data, user input errors, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the user experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered weapon recommendations based on playstyle 2. Build sharing and community rating system 3. Performance simulation in different game scenarios 4. Price tracking and deal alerts). 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 filtering systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to weapon configuration (e.g., built-in chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 3D animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core configuration 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 layer/business logic/presentation layer), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no structured architecture is used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no error handling or logging mechanisms exist. 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 web design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with gaming aesthetic (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for weapon categories and stats. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic 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) Configuration changes reflect immediately (≤ 100ms) 2) Transition animations between weapon views controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for all interactive elements 4) Smooth scrolling and filtering operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without visual feedback, 3 points for laggy animations during configuration changes, and 5 points for hard-to-find key configuration options. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}