@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/backend-interface-tea-culture.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 345,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code in your demonstrations. Create a simple backend interface based on tea culture.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the backend API architecture fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a RESTful or GraphQL API structure with proper routing, controller logic, and HTTP method handling specific to tea culture domains. Score 0 if no API endpoints are implemented, 5 if basic CRUD operations are present but lack proper organization, and 10 if the architecture follows best practices with clear separation of concerns and tea-specific domain modeling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the tea culture domain model properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the data models properly represent tea culture concepts (tea types, origins, brewing methods, etc.) with appropriate relationships and attributes. Check for proper schema design with validation rules. Deduct 5 points if critical tea attributes are missing, 3 points if relationship modeling is flawed. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the database integration implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes database connection setup, proper ORM/query builder usage, and data persistence mechanisms. Assess if tea-related queries are optimized and if database transactions are used where appropriate. Deduct 5 points for hardcoded credentials, 3 points for missing indexing on frequently queried tea properties. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are API authentication and security measures implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the backend implements proper authentication/authorization mechanisms (JWT, OAuth, etc.), input validation, and protection against common vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, etc.). Deduct 5 points if authentication is missing, 3 points if input sanitization is inadequate, and 5 points if no rate limiting is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, database connection failures, authentication errors, etc.) and provide appropriate error responses with status codes. Code with strong robustness should include try-catch blocks, input validation, and graceful error handling, 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. Tea recommendation algorithm 2. Brewing timer calculations based on tea type 3. Seasonal tea availability). 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 authentication systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to tea culture (e.g., general blog functionality) 3. Over-engineered components that add complexity without value. 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 controller/service/data access layers), test coverage, and deployment configurations. Deduct 5 points if global state is mismanaged; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error logging mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Is the API documentation comprehensive and clear?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the API is well-documented using standards like OpenAPI/Swagger, with clear endpoint descriptions, request/response examples specific to tea culture domains. Deduct 3 points for missing parameter descriptions, 5 points for lack of response schemas, and 5 points for no usage examples. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the API performance optimized?",
+      "description": "Judge whether performance considerations are implemented: 1) Response caching for tea catalog data 2) Query optimization for tea searches 3) Pagination for large result sets. Deduct 5 points for missing caching strategy, 3 points for unoptimized database queries, and 5 points for returning excessive data in responses. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/backend-transfer-record-processing-page.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1784,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the generated code executable for demonstration purposes. Help me create a backend processing page for a transfer record. The transfer is from Changsha Bank, account name \"Changsha Funding Service Center\", account number 6282*************** to China Agricultural Bank, recipient name \"Li Jianwei\", account number 6228***************, transfer amount 44,000 yuan, transfer time March 7, 2025, 15:30:01, arrival time 1-2 business days, with the note \"Student subsidy\".",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the transfer record display fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately displays all required transaction details (sender bank, sender name, sender account, recipient bank, recipient name, recipient account, amount, transfer time, expected arrival time, and note). Score 0 if critical information is missing, 5 if basic display is implemented but lacks formatting, and 10 if all details are properly formatted (e.g., currency formatted as '¥44,000.00', account numbers partially masked).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the backend processing logic properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes proper backend processing logic for transfer records, including data validation, transaction record creation, and handling state transitions. Deduct 5 points if input validation is missing, 3 points if transaction state management is incomplete, and 2 points if logging mechanism is insufficient. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a proper receipt/confirmation generation feature?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements functionality to generate a transfer receipt or confirmation that can be viewed, printed, or downloaded. Check for features like PDF generation, print-friendly formatting, or save-to-file options. Score 0 if completely missing, 5 if basic receipt is available but lacks formatting, and 10 if a professional receipt with all transaction details and bank identifiers is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is sensitive data properly handled and protected?",
+      "description": "Assess how the code handles sensitive financial information. Check for proper masking of account numbers (showing only last 4 digits), secure storage practices, and protection against data exposure. Deduct 5 points if account numbers are fully exposed, 3 points if masking is inconsistent, and 3 points if there's no distinction between public and sensitive data. 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 failed transfers, network errors, data inconsistencies) 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 transfer status tracking 2. Integration with popular messaging apps for notifications 3. QR code generation for the receipt). 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 for the same field) 2. Function modules unrelated to transfer records (e.g., a built-in calculator) 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/view/controller layers), unit test coverage, and error handling. 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 error handling is inadequate. 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 financial application design principles: 1) Clean, trust-inspiring color scheme (preferably using bank brand colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear visual hierarchy 3) Professional typography (readable font sizes, proper emphasis on important financial information). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for unprofessional color combinations, and 5 points for chaotic information architecture. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the user interactions are appropriate for a financial application: 1) Confirmation dialogs before critical actions 2) Clear loading states during processing 3) Success/failure notifications with appropriate next steps. Deduct 5 points for missing confirmation on important actions, 3 points for lack of loading indicators, and 5 points for unclear transaction outcome feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/base-station-maintenance-system-ui-with-navbar.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1054,
+  "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. Create a front-end UI interface for a base station maintenance system, with a top navigation bar that includes base station information and alarm information.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the top navigation bar properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the navigation bar is properly positioned at the top of the page, with clearly visible menu items for base station information and alarm information. The bar should be responsive, maintain visibility during scrolling, and use appropriate contrast for readability. Deduct 3 points if the navigation is not fixed to the top, 5 points if menu items are not clearly visible, and 5 points if it's not responsive across different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the base station information section comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code accurately implements the base station information display, including essential data fields (station ID, location, status, equipment list, maintenance history). Check for proper data formatting, sorting capabilities, and filtering options. Score 0 if the section is missing, 5 if only basic information is displayed without interaction features, and 10 if comprehensive information with advanced filtering/sorting is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the alarm information system functional?",
+      "description": "Review if the alarm information section includes critical elements: alarm severity indicators (color-coding), timestamp display, alarm categorization, and acknowledgment mechanisms. Verify whether visual/audio indicators for critical alarms are implemented. Deduct 5 points if severity indicators are missing, 3 points if acknowledgment functionality is absent, and 3 points if there's no alarm history view. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a dashboard or visualization component for monitoring?",
+      "description": "Check whether the interface includes data visualization components like status charts, alarm trend graphs, or geographic maps showing base station distribution. Evaluate if the visualizations are interactive and provide meaningful insights. Deduct 5 points if visualizations are static only, 5 points if key metrics are missing, and 3 points if legends/tooltips are not implemented. 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 data loading failures, empty states, network interruption, user operation 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. Real-time alert notifications 2. Dark/light theme toggle 3. Customizable dashboard layouts 4. Interactive equipment diagrams). 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 information) 2. Function modules unrelated to base station maintenance (e.g., unrelated analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components/data services/state management), component reusability, and build process optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation of concerns between UI and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the 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 for alarm states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy transitions between interface sections, and 5 points for hard-to-find critical alarm information. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/basic-settings-page-shadcn-ui-nextjs.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1219,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and expert responses. Be sure to ensure that any code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create a basic settings page for me based on shadcn UI in Next.js.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the shadcn UI integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify that shadcn UI components are correctly imported and used according to the documentation. Check if the necessary installation steps (via CLI or manual setup) are completed. Score 0 if shadcn UI is not used, 5 if components are imported but with configuration errors, and 10 for proper implementation with correct theming configuration.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the settings page structure appropriate for Next.js architecture?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code follows Next.js best practices: proper file structure (app/ or pages/ directory), correct usage of client/server components, and appropriate routing. Check if Server Components and Client Components are segregated correctly with 'use client' directives where needed. Deduct 5 points if the implementation doesn't follow Next.js 13+ conventions, and 3 points if metadata or layout files are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the settings page include essential configuration sections?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the settings page includes standard sections like Profile, Account, Appearance, Notifications, and Security. Each section should have appropriate form controls matching their purpose (e.g., toggles for notifications, color pickers for themes). Score 2 points for each well-implemented section, with a maximum of 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is form state management properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code uses appropriate form state management (React Hook Form, Formik, or native form controls) with proper validation. Verify that form submissions handle loading states and error handling. Score 0 if there's no form state management, 5 if basic implementation exists but lacks validation or error handling, and 10 if comprehensive implementation with validation, error states, and proper submission handling is present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as form validation errors, network failures during submission, unexpected input values, 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. Live preview of settings changes 2. User preference persistence with localStorage/cookies 3. Keyboard shortcut navigation between settings sections). 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 controls (e.g., multiple theme switchers) 2. Function modules unrelated to settings (e.g., a built-in calculator) 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 settings functionality is 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/logic/state management), component reusability, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state is used inappropriately; 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) Consistent use of shadcn UI's design language 2) Proper layout spacing and component hierarchy 3) Professional typographic system with appropriate heading sizes and readable body text. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent UI element, 5 points for poorly structured navigation, and 5 points for chaotic form layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate feedback on form interactions 2) Smooth transitions between settings sections 3) Clear visual indicators for active states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation mechanisms. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/bim-management-system-with-3d-preview.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 625,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Create a Building Information Modeling (BIM) management system that supports uploading .rvt/.ifc formats and displays 3D previews. Allow adding tags for floors and disciplines (architecture/structure/MEP), provide measurement tools and sectional view generation capabilities. Model updates must follow an approval workflow (initiate-review-publish).",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the BIM file upload and format conversion system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements file upload mechanisms for .rvt and .ifc formats, includes proper validation of file integrity, and conversion to web-compatible 3D formats (e.g., glTF, OBJ). Check if the system handles large file uploads with chunking and progress tracking. Score 0 if upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload is implemented without format conversion, and 10 if complete upload, validation, and conversion pipeline is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the 3D model viewer properly implemented with all required functionality?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the 3D viewer component. It should support basic navigation (pan, zoom, rotate), camera positioning presets, and display optimization for complex models. Check if the viewer handles different LOD (Level of Detail) to maintain performance with large models. Score 0 if viewer is not implemented, 5 if only basic viewing capabilities exist, and 10 if advanced features like selective rendering, performance optimizations, and cross-browser compatibility are included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are tagging and classification features complete?",
+      "description": "Check if the system allows adding, editing, and filtering tags for floors and disciplines (architecture/structure/MEP). Evaluate whether the tagging system is hierarchical, supports searching, and is visually integrated with the 3D model. Verify that discipline-specific color coding is applied to model components. Deduct 5 points if tagging is not connected to visual representation, and 3 points if bulk tagging options are missing. Full score requires persistent metadata storage and tag-based filtering in the UI.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are measurement tools and sectional view capabilities implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes comprehensive measurement tools (distance, area, angle) and generating cross-sectional views through the model. Check for accuracy in measurements with proper units conversion. Verify that section planes can be positioned freely and that section views are generated in real-time. Deduct 5 points if only basic measurements are implemented, and 3 points if sectional views lack customization options. The full score requires tools with professional-grade accuracy and intuitive UX.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupted BIM files, browser memory limitations, unsupported model features, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for validation of user inputs in measurement tools and handling of concurrent user actions. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered clash detection 2. Automated space usage analysis 3. VR/AR viewing mode 4. Collaborative annotation systems). 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 measurement tools using different calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to BIM management (e.g., a built-in document editor) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary particle effects or 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 3D rendering/BIM data processing/approval workflow), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper memory management when handling large 3D models. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching that distinguishes different disciplines/systems 2) Proper layout with clear separation between model viewer, navigation controls, and property panels 3) Professional font system with technical readability (body font size ≥ 14px, monospace for measurements). 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 approval workflow fully implemented and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the initiate-review-publish workflow is properly implemented with: 1) Clear status indicators for models 2) Role-based permissions for workflow actions 3) Version comparison tools between iterations 4) Comment/feedback system for reviewers. Deduct 5 points if the workflow lacks audit trails, 3 points if notification systems are missing, and 5 points if version control is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/blazor-ruoyi-admin-page.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1386,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Write an admin page similar to RuoYi using Blazor.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic admin page layout properly implemented with Blazor?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete admin layout with header, sidebar, content area, and footer using Blazor components. Check if the layout is responsive and follows modern UI principles. Score 0 if no layout implementation exists, 5 if basic layout is present but with significant issues, and 10 if a complete RuoYi-style layout is implemented with proper component organization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are authentication and authorization mechanisms implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of user authentication (login/logout) and role-based authorization. Check if it includes JWT or cookie-based authentication, role-based access control, and permission verification for different operations. Deduct 5 points if authentication is missing, 3 points if role-based controls are absent, and 3 points if permission granularity is insufficient. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the user and role management module implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes comprehensive user and role management features similar to RuoYi, including user CRUD operations, role assignment, department management, and user status control. Score 0 if these features are missing, 5 if only basic user management exists, and 10 if all RuoYi-equivalent user and role management features are implemented with proper data validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the system include data table management with CRUD operations?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the admin system implements data table management with sorting, filtering, pagination, and CRUD operations. Check if the implementation includes advanced features like batch operations, column customization, and export functionality. Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing, 3 points if filtering is insufficient, and 4 points if CRUD operations are incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, invalid inputs, concurrent operations, 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 dashboard with SignalR 2. Interactive data visualization 3. Advanced theming capabilities beyond RuoYi). 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 authentication mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to admin system (e.g., unnecessary widgets or components) 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 service/model/view layers), component reusability, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/building-drawing-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 527,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Please write code to implement a building drawing management system where architects can upload CAD drawings and BIM models. The system should support online drawing preview, version comparison, annotation marking functions, provide project classification and drawing numbering management, support drawing approval workflow, and be able to record drawing modification history and reasons for changes.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the CAD/BIM file upload and storage system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a secure upload mechanism for CAD drawings and BIM models, including proper file type validation, size checking, and storage management. Check if the system handles various CAD/BIM formats (DWG, DXF, RVT, IFC) and optimizes storage through compression or cloud storage integration. Score 0 if the upload functionality is missing, 5 if basic upload exists without format validation, and 10 if a complete, secure, and optimized upload system is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the online drawing preview functionality effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes robust rendering engines to display CAD drawings and BIM models directly in the browser without requiring special software. Check if the preview supports essential functions like zooming, panning, layer toggling, and 3D model rotation for BIM. The preview should work across major browsers and maintain drawing fidelity. Deduct 3 points if the preview is limited to certain file types, 4 points if 3D model interactivity is missing, and 3 points if the rendering quality is poor or slow. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "How comprehensive is the version comparison and annotation system?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements side-by-side visual comparison between drawing versions with highlighted differences and if annotations can be added as overlays on drawings without modifying the original files. The annotation system should support text notes, measurement tools, redline markups, and the ability to assign annotations to specific team members. Deduct 3 points if visual diff is missing, 3 points if annotation types are limited, and 4 points if annotation sharing/assignment capabilities are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the project classification, drawing numbering, and approval workflow system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes a hierarchical project organization structure, an automated drawing numbering system based on configurable rules, and a flexible approval workflow engine. The workflow should support multi-stage approvals with role-based permissions, electronic signatures, and automatic notifications. Deduct 3 points for lacking custom classification hierarchies, 3 points for manual numbering, and 4 points if the approval workflow doesn't support parallel or conditional paths. 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 corrupted CAD files, concurrent edits, server timeouts during large file uploads, permission 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 experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered drawing analysis for errors or compliance issues 2. Automatic generation of viewports and cross-sections from BIM models 3. AR/VR integration for immersive drawing review). 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 file viewers with overlapping capabilities) 2. Function modules unrelated to drawing management (e.g., a built-in general chat system not tied to drawings) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when switching between drawings). 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 file handling/rendering/workflow layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper handling of large files through streaming or chunked processing. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching appropriate for a technical CAD/BIM platform (neutral palette with clear accent colors for actions) 2) Proper layout spacing that maximizes drawing visibility while maintaining access to tools 3) Professional typography system that ensures readability of technical annotations and metadata. Deduct 3 points for each crowded toolbar or panel, 5 points for poor drawing-to-interface ratio, and 5 points for unclear visual hierarchy of tools and information. 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 professional CAD/BIM user expectations: 1) Drawing rendering and manipulation response ≤ 200ms 2) Smooth zoom/pan interactions without visual artifacts 3) Intuitive tool selection and application. Deduct 5 points for each operation that causes noticeable lag when manipulating drawings, 3 points for awkward tool switching mechanisms, and 5 points for non-standard interaction patterns that contradict common CAD conventions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/canteen-inventory-management-system-pyqt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1654,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure that any code you generate is executable and ready for demonstration. Write a canteen inventory management system using PyQt.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core inventory management functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements essential inventory management features including: adding/removing items, updating quantities, tracking expiration dates, and categorizing food items. Score 0 if these core functions are missing, 5 if basic CRUD operations are implemented, 10 if it includes advanced features like batch operations and inventory forecasting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the PyQt UI properly implemented with appropriate layouts?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the PyQt implementation including proper use of layouts (QVBoxLayout, QHBoxLayout, QGridLayout), responsive design principles, and proper widget hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for improper layout management causing visual issues, 3 points for fixed-size elements that don't adapt to window resizing, and 3 points if the UI elements are poorly organized. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a proper database integration with CRUD operations?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system properly integrates with a database (SQLite, MySQL, etc.) with proper connection handling, transaction management, and prepared statements to prevent SQL injection. Deduct 5 points if no database is used (only in-memory storage), 3 points if connections aren't properly closed, and 5 points if there's no error handling for database operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a reporting and analysis functionality?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes reporting features such as inventory valuation, consumption trends, stock alerts, and waste tracking. Look for data visualization components and exportable reports. Deduct 3 points for each missing essential report type, 5 points if there's no visualization capability, and 5 points if data export functionality is 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 invalid inputs, database connection failures, concurrent access issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Barcode/QR code scanning integration 2. AI-powered inventory prediction 3. Supplier management and automated ordering). 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 perform the same task) 2. Function modules unrelated to inventory management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations or visual effects). 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/business logic/data layers using MVC or MVVM patterns), unit test coverage, 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 there is 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 (consistent margins and padding) 3) Professional font system (readable font sizes, appropriate contrast). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for clashing colors, and 5 points for inconsistent visual hierarchy. 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) Appropriate loading indicators for long operations 3) Clear visual focus guidance and keyboard navigation support. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for UI freezing during database operations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}