@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/electron-apple-books-like-bookshelf-app.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 800,
+  "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 demonstrable. Develop a complete bookshelf application using Electron that has an interface similar to Apple Books, with capabilities for adding, deleting, modifying, and searching.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Apple Books-like interface design fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately replicates Apple Books' visual design through HTML/CSS/JavaScript, including the grid/list view toggle, book cover display with proper shadows and rounded corners, and smooth transitions between views. Check if the interface includes the characteristic typography, color scheme (light/dark mode support), and layout proportions matching Apple Books. Score 0 if basic UI structure is missing, 5 if only basic layout is implemented without proper styling, and 10 if the interface closely matches Apple Books' aesthetic standards.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the CRUD operations (add, delete, modify, search) fully functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether all four core operations are properly implemented: 1) Add books with metadata input forms and file import capabilities 2) Delete books with confirmation dialogs and proper cleanup 3) Modify book information with inline editing or modal forms 4) Search functionality with real-time filtering and advanced search options. Check if data persistence is handled correctly using Electron's file system or database integration. Deduct 3 points for each missing operation, and 2 points if operations lack proper validation or error handling. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Electron application architecture properly structured?",
+      "description": "Check whether the Electron app follows best practices with proper main/renderer process separation, secure IPC communication, and appropriate context isolation. Evaluate if the app includes proper window management, menu integration, and platform-specific features. Verify that security measures are in place (nodeIntegration disabled, contextIsolation enabled). Deduct 5 points if security vulnerabilities exist, 3 points if IPC communication is not properly structured, and 2 points if platform integration is missing. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data management and persistence system robust?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the application includes a comprehensive data management system for book storage, metadata handling, and file organization. Check if the system supports various book formats, maintains data integrity, includes backup/restore functionality, and handles large libraries efficiently. Evaluate if the database schema (SQLite/JSON) is well-designed with proper indexing for search performance. Deduct 5 points if no persistent storage is implemented, 3 points if data integrity mechanisms are missing, and 2 points if performance optimization is lacking. 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 book files, disk space issues, invalid metadata, network errors for online features, 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. Reading progress tracking with visual indicators 2. Smart book recommendations based on reading history 3. Export/import library functionality 4. Book preview with flip animation 5. Reading statistics dashboard). 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 search mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to bookshelf management (e.g., built-in games or unrelated utilities) 3. Excessive animations or effects that impact performance (e.g., complex 3D transitions). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core bookshelf functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separating UI components, data layer, and Electron-specific modules), proper error handling, and build process automation. Check for proper TypeScript usage if applicable, ESLint configuration, and packaging scripts. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper architecture patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if code duplication rate is high (over 25%); deduct 2 points if build/packaging process is not properly configured. 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 consistent with Apple's design language 2) Proper layout spacing with consistent margins and padding 3) Professional typography system with appropriate font sizes and hierarchy 4) Responsive grid layout for different window sizes. Deduct 3 points for each visually inconsistent element, 5 points for poor color harmony that doesn't match Apple Books aesthetic, and 3 points for improper spacing or alignment issues. 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 Apple's Human Interface Guidelines: 1) Hover states and click feedback with proper timing 2) Smooth transitions between grid and list views 3) Fluid animations for book operations (add/delete/modify) 4) Responsive scrolling and loading states 5) Proper focus management for keyboard navigation. Deduct 4 points for each missing interaction feedback, 3 points for janky animations or performance issues, and 3 points for poor accessibility support. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/electron-vue-typescript-epub-reader-desktop-app.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 711,
+  "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 epub reader desktop application using electron+vue3+vite+typescript",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the EPUB parsing and rendering functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code correctly implements EPUB parsing (extracting content, metadata, TOC from .epub files) and renders HTML/CSS content from EPUB files. Score 0 if core parsing is missing, 5 if basic content display works but with formatting issues, and 10 if it properly handles EPUB 2.0/3.0 standards including complex layouts, embedded fonts, and media overlays.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the e-reader navigation system complete and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Check if the application implements essential navigation features: table of contents navigation, page turning animations, bookmarking system, search function, and reading progress tracking. Deduct 2 points for each missing core navigation feature. Score 10 only if the navigation is both complete and intuitive with keyboard shortcuts, touch gestures, and visual indicators.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Electron integration properly implemented with Vue3 and Vite?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements Electron's main and renderer processes with appropriate IPC communication. Check if the TypeScript types are correctly defined for Electron API interactions. Deduct 5 points if process separation is incorrect, 3 points if TypeScript interfaces are missing/incorrect, and 3 points if Vite configuration doesn't handle Electron's development and production builds properly.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the EPUB library management system robust and feature-complete?",
+      "description": "Assess if the application includes a library management system with metadata extraction, cover display, sorting/filtering options, and file system integration for importing and organizing EPUB files. Score 0 if no library management exists, 5 if basic listing is available, and 10 if it includes advanced features like collection management, reading history, and metadata editing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as corrupt EPUB files, missing permissions, concurrent file 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. Night reading mode with blue light filter 2. Text-to-speech integration 3. Note-taking and highlighting with cloud sync 4. Dictionary/translation integration). 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 layout engines) 2. Function modules unrelated to e-reading (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down page turning). 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 TypeScript usage quality (proper interfaces/types, no any types), component architecture (proper separation of concerns, reusable components), state management patterns, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if TypeScript is used incorrectly or inconsistently; deduct 3 points if components are tightly coupled; deduct 3 points if state management is chaotic; deduct 2 points if the build process is not optimized for both development and production. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern desktop application design principles: 1) Consistent theme with proper light/dark mode support 2) Proper use of whitespace and content hierarchy 3) Professional typography system with appropriate font scaling for readability. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent UI elements, 3 points for poor readability settings, and 4 points for lack of responsive design for different screen sizes. 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 desktop application standards: 1) Fast startup time (under 3 seconds) 2) Smooth page turns without flickering 3) Responsive UI even with large EPUB files 4) Proper loading indicators for background operations. Deduct 3 points for laggy scrolling/page turning, 3 points for UI freezes during file operations, and 4 points for noticeable rendering issues when changing display settings. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/electron-vue2-network-requests.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 248,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code examples when possible. Electron+Vue2.0 local application sending network requests",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Electron setup properly configured for Vue 2.0 integration?",
+      "description": "Review whether the project structure correctly integrates Vue 2.0 within Electron with proper main and renderer process separation. Check if background.js (main process) and Vue app initialization are correctly linked. Score 0 if no proper integration exists, 5 if basic setup is implemented but with architectural flaws, and 10 if the integration follows Electron best practices with clear process separation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are network requests implemented with appropriate libraries and error handling?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the network request implementation (Axios, Fetch API, or Electron's net module). Check for proper timeout configurations, retry mechanisms, and comprehensive error handling. Deduct 3 points if CORS handling is missing for external APIs, 3 points if no request/response interceptors are implemented, and 5 points if error states aren't properly managed. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there proper main and renderer process communication for network operations?",
+      "description": "Check if the application uses appropriate IPC channels (ipcMain/ipcRenderer) for network-related operations that should be in the main process. Evaluate if proper security measures are in place when handling external data. Deduct 5 points if all network requests are made directly from the renderer process without security considerations, and 3 points if IPC communication lacks error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are offline capabilities and connection management implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code handles network connectivity issues, includes offline detection, and implements data caching mechanisms. Check for online/offline event listeners and graceful degradation strategies. Deduct 5 points if no offline detection exists, 3 points if request queueing for offline mode is missing, and 3 points if no visual indicators for connection status are provided. 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 API failures, malformed responses, certificate issues, network timeouts, 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. Smart request throttling/batching 2. Background synchronization with system tray notifications 3. Visual network activity monitor). 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. Multiple HTTP client implementations coexisting without clear purpose 2. Unnecessary polling when WebSockets would be more appropriate 3. Excessive logging that impacts performance. 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 API services/business logic/UI components), unit test coverage for network operations, and proper environment configuration for development vs production. 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 no environment-based API configuration exists. 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) Loading states for network operations appear within 300ms 2) Progress indicators for long-running requests 3) Smooth transitions for data updates after requests complete. Deduct 5 points for each operation without loading feedback, 3 points for jumpy layouts during data loading/updating, and 5 points for blocked UI during network operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/electronic-fence-management-vue3-autonavi.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 714,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that any code you generate is executable. I want to develop several screens using the AutoNavi (Gaode) API with VUE3.\n\nFirst screen: Electronic Fence Management\nThe screen layout should be half data display area and half map. When I click on an electronic fence data entry, the map area should simultaneously display the electronic fence style. The screen should support adding, deleting, modifying, and querying electronic fences, and also allow customization directly on the map.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Electronic Fence Implementation",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete electronic fence system with AutoNavi's API in Vue3, including polygon, circle, and rectangle fence types with visual representations. Score 0 if no fence drawing is implemented, 5 if only basic shapes without editing capabilities, and 10 if all fence types are implemented with full editing functionality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Map and Data Area Integration",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the half-data, half-map layout, checking whether the split view is properly responsive and maintains appropriate proportions across different screen sizes. Ensure synchronization between data entries and map visualization is working correctly (clicking a fence in the list highlights it on the map). Deduct 5 points if synchronization has noticeable lag (>200ms), 3 points if the layout breaks on certain screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "CRUD Operations for Electronic Fences",
+      "description": "Verify that all create, read, update, and delete operations for electronic fences are properly implemented. Each operation should update both the data display and map visualization. Check for client-side validation of fence parameters and proper error handling. Deduct 3 points for each missing operation, 3 points for improper validation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Map-based Fence Customization",
+      "description": "Examine whether direct fence manipulation on the map is supported (drawing new fences, resizing, moving vertices, etc.). Check if the editing interface is intuitive with proper mouse interaction feedback. Deduct 5 points if vertex editing is not supported, 3 points if fence creation requires complex steps, and 3 points if there's no visual feedback during editing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Code Robustness",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as API failures, invalid coordinate inputs, concurrent edits, 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": "Innovative Features",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Batch import/export of fence data 2. Fence conflict detection 3. History tracking of fence changes 4. Heat map visualization of fence interactions). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Feature Redundancy",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to edit the same fence property) 2. Function modules unrelated to fence management (e.g., unnecessary weather overlays) 3. Fancy effects that affect map 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": "Engineering Quality",
+      "description": "Review Vue3 component architecture, state management approach, code reusability, and proper use of Vue's Composition API. Deduct 5 points if global state is mismanaged; deduct 3 points if components are too tightly coupled; deduct 5 points if API integration is not properly abstracted; deduct 3 points if Vue3 best practices are not followed. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Interface Design Quality",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing for both map and data areas 3) Professional typography system (consistent font hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for cluttered list displays, 5 points for poor contrast between map and UI elements, and 5 points for inconsistent styling between data area and map controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Interaction Fluidity",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate visual feedback when selecting fences 2) Smooth animations for fence creation/editing (300-500ms) 3) Clear visual indicators for active/selected fences. Deduct 5 points for laggy map interactions, 3 points for jarring transitions between data and map updates, and 5 points for confusing fence selection states. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/electronic-medical-record-editor-web.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 728,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for demonstration. Create an electronic medical record editor using JavaScript, HTML, CSS, and Markdown.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core electronic medical record editing functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements a Markdown editor with medical record-specific features such as structured templates for patient information, medical history, diagnosis, treatment plans, and follow-ups. Score 0 if basic editing is not implemented, 5 if only simple text editing is available, and 10 if it includes specialized medical formatting options and templates.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include proper data structure for medical records?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes appropriate data structures for storing and managing medical record components (patient demographics, vital signs, medications, allergies, lab results, etc.). Evaluate if the structure allows for proper organization, quick retrieval, and maintaining relationships between different medical data elements. Deduct 5 points if the data structure is too simplistic, and 3 points if it doesn't support proper medical record organization. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is data validation and medical terminology support implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the editor validates medical-specific data (e.g., vital sign ranges, drug dosages, ICD-10 codes) and provides medical terminology assistance (autocomplete, standardized terms). Check if there's integration with or simulation of medical coding systems. Deduct 5 points if basic validation is missing, and 3 points if there's no medical terminology support. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation address medical record security and privacy?",
+      "description": "Examine if the code includes considerations for HIPAA compliance, such as user authentication, access controls, audit logging, data encryption, or session timeouts. Check if there are warnings about PHI handling. Deduct 5 points if no security features are implemented, and 3 points if only basic measures are present. 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 medical data input, browser compatibility issues, network interruptions during saving, etc.) and provides 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 medical record experience (e.g., 1. Voice-to-text for dictation 2. Automated coding assistance 3. Interactive anatomical diagrams 4. Decision support 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 save mechanisms with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to medical record keeping (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down critical medical data entry). 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/data model/validation logic), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional medical software standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows healthcare UI principles: 1) Neutral, calming color scheme with clear visual hierarchy 2) Proper layout with distinct sections for different medical record components 3) Professional typography with excellent readability (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for inappropriate color schemes in a medical context, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction optimized for clinical workflow?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the UI interactions support efficient clinical documentation: 1) Quick access to common templates and terms 2) Minimal clicks for frequent actions (≤ 3 clicks) 3) Clear visual feedback for saved vs. unsaved data. Deduct 5 points for workflows requiring excessive navigation, 3 points for slow response times (> 300ms) during data entry, and 5 points for missing autosave or data recovery features. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/employee-daily-work-plan-calendar.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1463,
+  "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. I want to create an Excel spreadsheet for employees to fill in their daily work plans, with a perpetual calendar for selecting dates. It should have 7 windows displaying Monday through Sunday, where daily work plans can be entered. All employees will use the same spreadsheet, but it should be possible to select individual employees to view their work plans.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the perpetual calendar fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the calendar component accurately handles date selection, supports month/year navigation, and properly highlights weekends/holidays. Check if it correctly maps selected dates to the appropriate day-of-week columns. Score 0 if the calendar is not implemented, 5 if basic date picking works but has issues with edge cases (month boundaries, leap years), and 10 if it handles all date scenarios correctly including proper month/year transitions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the 7-day work plan display correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the spreadsheet properly renders 7 columns for Monday through Sunday, with correct date headers for each day. Check that the system correctly populates content based on the selected week, with appropriate styling for current day, weekend days, and holidays. Deduct 5 points if days are mislabeled or inconsistently formatted; deduct 3 points if column widths are not optimized for content. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the employee selection and filtering functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements a robust employee selection system that allows filtering work plans by specific employees. Verify that the dropdown/selection mechanism is functional, includes search capabilities for larger employee lists, and properly persists the selected employee across date changes. Deduct 5 points if employee filtering doesn't maintain state when navigating between weeks; deduct 3 points if there's no visual indication of which employee is currently selected. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the work plan entry system allow for proper data input and management?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system provides appropriate cell editing capabilities for entering work plans, with features like text formatting, multi-line input, and character limits. Check if the implementation includes data validation, auto-save functionality, and undo/redo capabilities. Deduct 5 points if there's no data persistence mechanism; deduct 3 points if editing capabilities are limited to basic text input without formatting. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid date inputs, concurrent edits by multiple users, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automated task tracking with completion indicators 2. Integration with notification systems for deadlines 3. Work plan templates for quick entry 4. Visual workload indicators across the week). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple date pickers with different behaviors) 2. Function modules unrelated to work planning (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when switching between employees). 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), code reusability, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there is no error handling or logging mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional spreadsheet design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the spreadsheet follows professional design principles: 1) Clean grid layout with consistent cell sizing 2) Proper visual hierarchy with distinct headers and data areas 3) Professional color coding system (e.g., for weekends, current day, or priority tasks). Deduct 3 points for inconsistent cell formatting, 5 points for poor contrast making content difficult to read, and 5 points for cluttered or confusing layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether interactions match spreadsheet user expectations: 1) Cell selection and editing behaves similarly to Excel 2) Calendar selection is immediate and visible 3) Employee switching maintains context and position. Deduct 5 points for unintuitive navigation between dates or employees, 3 points for laggy input response when entering work plans, and 5 points for missing keyboard shortcuts for common operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/energy-consumption-monitoring-and-warning-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1139,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Provide the following functionalities:\n\nEnergy statistics for total water consumption with corresponding total amount display\nEnergy statistics for total electricity consumption with corresponding total amount display\nTotal coal consumption functionality with corresponding total amount display\nEnergy statistics for monthly water consumption by park with corresponding total amount display\nEnergy statistics for monthly electricity consumption by park with corresponding total amount display\nEnergy statistics for monthly coal consumption by park with corresponding total amount display\nEnergy statistics water consumption monitoring and warning functionality\nEnergy statistics electricity consumption monitoring and warning functionality\nEnergy statistics coal consumption monitoring and warning functionality\nWater monitoring warning list functionality, including affiliation, warning time, location points, and warning content",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the total energy consumption statistics system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the total water, electricity, and coal consumption statistics with proper visualization and numerical displays. Check for integration of consumption data sources, calculation logic, and data refresh mechanisms. Score 0 if none implemented, 5 if partial implementation (missing one type), and 10 if all three energy types are fully implemented with accurate totals.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the monthly park-level energy consumption breakdown functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes monthly breakdowns of water, electricity, and coal consumption by park. Check for filtering capabilities, time range selection, and proper aggregation logic. Score 0 if the breakdown is missing, 5 if only some energy types are broken down by park, and 10 if all energy types have complete monthly park-level statistics with proper data visualization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the energy consumption monitoring and warning systems implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements threshold-based monitoring and warning systems for all three energy types. Review if configurable thresholds are available, if real-time/near-real-time monitoring is supported, and if warning triggers function properly. Score 0 if monitoring systems are absent, 5 if basic monitoring exists without proper warning mechanisms, and 10 if comprehensive monitoring with configurable thresholds and proper warning systems are implemented for all energy types.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the water monitoring warning list functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review if the warning list for water consumption includes all required fields (affiliation, warning time, location points, warning content), supports sorting/filtering, and integrates with the monitoring system. Check if warning details can be viewed and if the system allows for acknowledgment/resolution of warnings. Score 0 if the list is missing, 5 if a basic list exists but lacks required fields or functionality, and 10 if the complete warning list with all functionality is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as data loading failures, invalid data formats, user input errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Predictive consumption analytics 2. Interactive comparison tools between parks 3. Automated efficiency recommendations based on consumption patterns). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar statistics functions (e.g., multiple calculation methods for the same metric) 2. Function modules unrelated to energy statistics (e.g., unnecessary system settings) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations in data visualization). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data processing/visualization/alert logic layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (using appropriate colors for energy types - blue for water, yellow for electricity, black for coal) 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 for chart updates 3) Clear visual focus guidance when switching between energy types or time periods. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast data refreshing, 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": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/energy-system-monitoring-frontend-interface.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1053,
+  "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. I want to create a front-end interface for an energy system monitoring platform.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the energy system monitoring dashboard layout properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a comprehensive dashboard layout with key energy monitoring sections (overview panel, detailed metrics, historical data, alerts). Check for responsive design that adapts to different screen sizes. Score 0 if no dashboard structure exists, 5 if only basic layout is implemented, and 10 if the layout includes all necessary monitoring components with proper hierarchy and organization.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are real-time data visualization components correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of dynamic charts (line graphs, gauges, heat maps) for energy metrics. Charts should update in real-time with proper animations for transitions. Verify that data binding mechanisms are implemented for live updates. Deduct 5 points if visualizations are static only, 3 points if real-time updates are missing. Full score requires at least 3 different visualization types with proper legends and tooltips.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a comprehensive system for alerts and anomaly detection?",
+      "description": "Check for implementation of visual alert indicators, notification system, and threshold configuration. The alert system should include different severity levels with appropriate visual cues (colors, icons). Evaluate whether anomaly detection logic is implemented to highlight unusual energy consumption patterns. Deduct 5 points if alerts are visual-only without interaction, and 5 points if threshold configuration is missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a complete energy data comparison and analysis module?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements features for comparing historical vs. current energy usage, cross-system component comparison, and trend analysis. Check for filtering capabilities by time range and system components. Deduct 5 points if only basic comparisons are available, 5 points if advanced analytics features (forecasting, pattern detection) are missing. Full score requires interactive comparison tools with exportable reports.",
+      "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 datasets, sensor malfunction indicators, network interruption, 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. Predictive maintenance alerts using data patterns 2. Energy efficiency recommendations based on usage 3. Custom dashboard configuration for different user roles). 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 data displays (e.g., multiple charts showing the same information) 2. Function modules unrelated to energy monitoring (e.g., unnecessary administrative tools) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact dashboard responsiveness). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core monitoring functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data fetching/visualization/alert logic layers), component reusability, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic 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 between UI components 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 appropriate for monitoring systems (limited use of bright colors reserved for alerts) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear information hierarchy 3) Professional typography system with good readability for data-heavy displays. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered dashboard section, 5 points for poor color coding that makes data interpretation difficult, and 5 points for inconsistent styling across the interface. 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) Data updates occur without disrupting user focus 2) Transition animations for chart updates are under 300ms 3) Interactive elements provide clear feedback on hover/click/selection. Deduct 5 points for data refreshes that interrupt user workflow, 3 points for laggy interactions when filtering large datasets, and 5 points if important alerts lack appropriate attention-grabbing mechanisms. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}