@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/implement-frontend-backend-app-tsx.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 783,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and expert responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Don't worry about security issues for now, and implement both frontend and backend content in app.tsx.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the app.tsx file correctly structured as a React component?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the app.tsx file follows proper React component architecture with appropriate imports, functional or class component definition, and proper export. Check for React hooks usage if it's a functional component or lifecycle methods if it's a class component. Score 0 if the file doesn't contain a valid React component, 5 if it has basic structure but with issues, and 10 if it follows all React best practices.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the code include both frontend and backend integration in a single file as requested?",
+      "description": "Check if the app.tsx contains both frontend React code and backend-like functionality (such as API simulations, data handling, or server-side logic). Evaluate if the integration approach is practical within the constraints of a single file. Deduct 5 points if only frontend is implemented, 8 points if backend simulation is missing or severely limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there appropriate state management for the application?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code uses proper state management techniques (useState, useReducer, Context API, etc.) for handling application data. Check if state updates are performed correctly without direct mutations. Deduct 3 points for each anti-pattern found (e.g., excessive prop drilling, unnecessary re-renders, improper state updates). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include proper error handling and loading states?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code handles potential errors (e.g., failed API calls, invalid inputs) and includes appropriate loading states for asynchronous operations. Give 10 points if comprehensive error boundaries, fallbacks, and loading indicators are implemented. Give 5 points if basic error handling exists but is incomplete. Give 0 points if errors would crash the application.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases (empty data, network issues, unexpected inputs) and provides appropriate user feedback. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle various scenarios without breaking. Deduct 2 points for each unhandled edge case. The full score is 10 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. Responsive design with adaptive layout 2. Dark/light mode toggle 3. Accessibility considerations like ARIA attributes and keyboard navigation). 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 state variables or component declarations 2. Unnecessary re-rendering of components 3. Over-engineered solutions for simple problems. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (component structure, separation of concerns), naming conventions, and code reusability. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if the code has excessive duplication; deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between UI, logic, and data. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent component styling 2) Proper use of whitespace and alignment 3) Responsive layout that works across device sizes. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 5 points for poor layout hierarchy, and 5 points for non-responsive designs. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interactions provide good user experience: 1) Immediate feedback for user actions 2) Smooth transitions between states 3) Intuitive navigation and controls. Deduct 5 points for laggy transitions, 3 points for confusing interaction patterns, and 5 points for missing user feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/industrial-component-defect-detection-system-vue3.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 911,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable whenever possible. This is for an industrial component defect detection system developed with Vue 3.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is a complete defect detection workflow implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code properly implements the entire industrial defect detection pipeline: image acquisition, preprocessing, feature extraction, classification/detection algorithms, and result visualization. Score 0 if the core detection workflow is missing, 5 points if basic detection is implemented but lacks optimization, and 10 points if a comprehensive pipeline with multiple detection techniques is provided.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 implementation technically correct and optimized?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the Vue 3 specific implementation including proper use of Composition API, reactive state management, component design, and Vue lifecycle hooks. Look for proper implementation of <script setup>, ref/reactive usage, and computed properties. Deduct 3 points for each anti-pattern (like not using shallowRef for large objects), 5 points if Suspense is not properly handled for async components, and 3 points if Vue 3 performance features (like v-memo) are not utilized where appropriate. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is real-time image processing and analysis functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the system can process images in real-time with WebGL/Web Workers to avoid UI blocking, has proper buffering mechanisms, and implements efficient image processing algorithms. Check if WebRTC is used for camera stream handling and if processing pipeline is optimized. Deduct 5 points if processing causes UI freezes, 3 points if image processing is not parallelized, and 3 points if frame rate drops below 15 FPS for standard operations. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the defect analysis and reporting system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Examine if the system provides detailed defect classifications, statistical analysis, historical comparisons, and exportable reports. Check for visualization of defect patterns over time, severity classification, and integration with industrial standards. Deduct 3 points if reports lack visual data representation, 5 points if historical analysis is missing, and 3 points if export formats are limited (should support at least PDF, CSV, and JSON). Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common industrial environment issues (network instability, hardware failures, image corruption), implements proper error boundaries, and has recovery mechanisms. Code should handle edge cases like varying lighting conditions and unexpected object presentations. Deduct 5 points if critical error handling is missing, 3 points if there's no degraded functionality mode, and 3 points if error logging/reporting is inadequate. Full score is 10 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 industrial experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted defect prediction 2. Adaptive learning from operator feedback 3. Real-time defect classification confidence scores 4. Automated camera calibration). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant image processing pipelines that accomplish the same goal 2. Unnecessary UI elements that distract from the main industrial workflow 3. Heavy animations or effects that could impact system performance in an industrial setting. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core detection functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review the industrial-grade architecture (separation of detection algorithms/UI/data storage), automated testing for vision algorithms accuracy, CI/CD integration, and error telemetry. Deduct 3 points if global state is overused, 3 points if test coverage for critical detection algorithms is below 80%, 2 points if the build process isn't optimized for industrial settings, and 2 points if there's no performance profiling implemented. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet industrial UI/UX standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the UI follows industrial design principles: 1) High contrast for factory environments 2) Touch-friendly targets (≥44px) for gloved operation 3) Clear iconography with text labels 4) Proper information hierarchy for critical alerts. Deduct 3 points for poor visibility under varied lighting, 3 points for controls too small for industrial use, 2 points for poor color coding of defects, and 2 points for cluttered dashboards. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the system performance optimized for industrial requirements?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system meets industrial performance needs: 1) Initial load time ≤3 seconds 2) Detection pipeline latency ≤200ms 3) Responsive UI even during heavy processing 4) Efficient memory management for extended operation. Deduct 3 points if memory leaks occur during continuous operation, 3 points if the system can't handle industrial camera resolutions at full frame rate, 2 points for inefficient asset loading, and 2 points if there's no performance degradation strategy. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/insurance-customer-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 634,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please write code to implement an insurance customer management system. Insurance agents can log in to add and manage customer information, record customer insurance needs and policy history. Customers can log in to view their own policy information, submit claims, and check claim progress. Administrators can review claim applications, manage insurance product information, and generate customer and claims statistical reports.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and role-based access control fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a secure authentication system with proper session management and distinct roles (agent, customer, administrator) with appropriate permission levels. Check for password hashing, CSRF protection, and session timeout features. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic login exists but lacks proper role segregation, and 10 if complete RBAC with security measures is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the customer management functionality complete for agents?",
+      "description": "Verify if agents can add new customers, update customer information, record customer needs assessment, and track policy history. The system should include form validation, data sanitization, and proper relational database structure. Deduct 3 points if customer search functionality is missing, 3 points if data validation is inadequate, and 4 points if there's no way to record customer interactions or needs assessment. Full score requires complete CRUD operations with audit logging.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the policy management system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine if the system allows for creating, updating, and managing policy information with appropriate relationships to customers and agents. Check if policy documents can be uploaded/stored, if premium calculations are included, and if policy status changes (active, lapsed, canceled) are tracked. Deduct 3 points for missing document management, 3 points for absence of policy lifecycle tracking, and 4 points if premium handling is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the claims processing workflow complete?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a complete claims lifecycle: submission by customers, review by administrators, status updates, documentation requirements, and payment processing. Check if the workflow handles multi-step approval processes and notification systems. Deduct 5 points if the workflow is linear without proper state management, 3 points if document upload/management for claims is missing, and 2 points if there's no notification system for status changes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input data, duplicate submissions, database connection failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include try-catch blocks, input validation, and graceful error handling. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation only, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
+      "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 risk assessment tool 2. Automated policy renewal reminders 3. Interactive dashboards for claims analysis 4. Mobile-responsive design with push notifications). 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. Duplicate functionality across different modules (e.g., multiple customer search implementations) 2. Features unrelated to insurance management (e.g., built-in games or unnecessary social features) 3. Over-engineered components that complicate the system. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if 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 MVC pattern or service-oriented architecture), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for code documentation, naming conventions, and consistent coding style. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 3 points if the code lacks comments or documentation; deduct 2 points if there's no evidence of testing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme appropriate for financial/insurance context 2) Proper information hierarchy and form layout 3) Consistent typography and component styling across the application. Deduct 3 points for cluttered dashboards, 4 points for confusing navigation structure, and 3 points for inconsistent visual elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the system performance and data security adequately addressed?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system handles performance considerations and security requirements: 1) Data encryption for sensitive customer information 2) Pagination for large data sets 3) Optimized database queries 4) Proper logging of system access and changes. Deduct 3 points for missing data encryption, 2 points for poor query optimization, 3 points for inadequate audit logging, and 2 points if there's no consideration for data backup/recovery. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/insurance-customer-service-system-design.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 698,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Insurance Company Customer Service System Design\n\nYou are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration.\n\nAn insurance company customer service contact center needs to build an online customer service system with the following requirements:\n- Access to the online customer service portal through the official WeChat mini program\n- 24-hour interaction with a chatbot once entered\n- The chatbot can be integrated with third-party applications\n- Visitors can choose whether to transfer to human agents for continued service\n\nPlease design a set of runnable code based on the above requirements.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the WeChat Mini Program integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code includes proper integration with WeChat Mini Program API, including authentication, user session management, and navigation to the customer service portal. Verify if the Mini Program project structure follows WeChat development specifications with proper app.json, app.js, and page configurations.0 points if no WeChat Mini Program code is provided, 5 points if basic structure exists but lacks proper API integration, 10 points if fully implemented with proper authentication flow and complete navigation to customer service.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the 24-hour chatbot interaction system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the chatbot system is designed to handle continuous 24-hour operation with proper session management, conversation state persistence, and error recovery. Check if the system includes time-zone handling for global accessibility and has mechanisms to maintain context across extended conversations.0 points if no chatbot implementation is provided, 5 points if basic chatbot exists but lacks 24-hour operational capabilities, 10 points if the solution fully addresses 24-hour availability with proper session persistence and recovery mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the third-party integration capability implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code provides flexible APIs or interfaces for third-party application integration. This should include webhook support, authentication mechanisms for external systems, standardized data exchange formats, and proper documentation for integration points.0 points if no integration capabilities exist, 5 points if basic API endpoints are defined but lack security or flexibility features, 10 points if comprehensive integration solutions are provided with proper security, documentation and example implementations.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the human agent transfer mechanism properly designed?",
+      "description": "Examine if the system implements a smooth transfer mechanism from chatbot to human agents. Check for presence of agent availability tracking, queue management, conversation context preservation during transfer, and notification systems for both users and agents.0 points if no transfer mechanism exists, 5 points if basic transfer functionality is implemented but lacks queue management or context preservation, 10 points if comprehensive transfer system is provided with proper handling of edge cases like agent unavailability.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, API failures, invalid inputs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for presence of exception handling, input validation, and graceful degradation patterns.0 points if no exception handling exists, 5 points if basic error handling is implemented but lacks recovery mechanisms, 10 points if comprehensive error handling with proper user feedback and recovery paths is provided.",
+      "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. Sentiment analysis to detect customer frustration 2. Automatic insurance policy recommendation based on conversation context 3. Voice/video chat capabilities 4. Multi-language support).Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate implementations of similar functions 2. Function modules unrelated to insurance customer service 3. Overly complex UI elements or processes that complicate the user experience.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, and data layers), code reusability, naming conventions, and documentation quality. Check for presence of unit tests, configuration management, and deployment considerations.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 documentation or comments are provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI design follows WeChat Mini Program design guidelines and insurance industry best practices: 1) Consistent with WeChat design language 2) Professional color scheme appropriate for financial services 3) Clear information hierarchy and readability 4) Accessible design for all users.Deduct 3 points for each inconsistency with WeChat design guidelines, 5 points for inappropriate color schemes that don't convey trust and professionalism, and 5 points for poor information architecture. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and user-focused?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the customer journey is intuitive and efficient: 1) Clear indicators when chatting with bot vs. human 2) Smooth transitions between different conversation states 3) Appropriate loading states and feedback 4) Easy access to common insurance queries or functions.Deduct 5 points for missing user feedback during operations, 3 points for confusing navigation between bot and human service, and 5 points for excessive steps to complete common customer service tasks. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/intelligent-manufacturing-command-center.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1254,
+  "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 purposes. Change the data to 'Intelligent Manufacturing Base Command Center' with table headers as follows: Order Number, Work Order, Work Order Description, Project Quantity, Planned Progress, Actual Progress, Planned Start Time, Planned Completion Time, Actual Start Time, Current Process, Status, Abnormal Status. Please randomly generate data according to these headers and return the complete code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the intelligent manufacturing command center data structure correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements all required table headers (Order Number, Work Order, Work Order Description, Project Quantity, Planned Progress, Actual Progress, Planned Start Time, Planned Completion Time, Actual Start Time, Current Process, Status, Abnormal Status) with appropriate data types and logical relationships. Score 0 if core data fields are missing, 5 if basic structure exists but lacks proper validation, and 10 if all fields are properly structured with realistic manufacturing data patterns.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the random data generation logic realistic and comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the randomly generated data follows manufacturing industry standards and logical consistency (e.g., actual start time should not precede planned start time, progress values should be between 0-100%, status should correlate with progress). Deduct 5 points if data lacks manufacturing context realism, 3 points if temporal logic is inconsistent. Full score requires at least 20+ realistic data entries with proper manufacturing workflow simulation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the command center dashboard visualization effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface resembles a professional manufacturing command center with appropriate data presentation methods (tables, charts, status indicators). Should include real-time status visualization and progress tracking elements. Deduct 5 points if only basic table display is implemented, 3 points if missing manufacturing-specific visual elements like progress bars or status indicators. Full score requires comprehensive dashboard layout.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are manufacturing-specific features and interactions properly integrated?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes manufacturing command center specific functionalities such as filtering by status, sorting by priority, progress monitoring, and abnormal status alerts. Should provide search/filter capabilities for work orders and real-time status updates. Deduct 5 points if basic manufacturing workflow features are missing, 3 points if interaction capabilities are limited. Give 10 points if comprehensive manufacturing management features are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid date ranges, null data entries, progress value overflows, status inconsistencies, 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 manufacturing command center experience (e.g., 1. Real-time production efficiency analytics 2. Predictive delay warnings 3. Interactive Gantt chart visualization 4. Export functionality for production reports). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple sorting mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to manufacturing command center (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations on data tables). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core manufacturing data display 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 generation/presentation/interaction layers), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the code structure is not scalable for additional manufacturing data types. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional command center design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows industrial command center aesthetics: 1) Professional color scheme suitable for manufacturing environment (dark themes preferred) 2) Clear data hierarchy and readable typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 3) Appropriate use of status colors (red for abnormal, green for normal, yellow for warning). Deduct 3 points for each unclear visual element, 5 points for unprofessional color combinations, and 5 points for poor data readability. 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 command center operation requirements: 1) Data loading and filtering response time ≤ 200ms 2) Smooth table sorting and pagination transitions 3) Clear visual feedback for user interactions 4) Appropriate hover and selection states. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy data operations, and 5 points for unclear interactive elements. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/intelligent-meeting-room-booking-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1686,
+  "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. Explain how to implement an intelligent meeting room booking system using qwen-vl-max frontend, with detailed booking information displayed on the page that can be edited.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the intelligent meeting room booking system interface fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the meeting room booking interface with essential components like calendar view, room selection, time slot picking, and booking form. Score 0 if core UI elements are missing, 5 if only basic interface is implemented without intelligent features, 10 if the complete system with intelligent recommendations and visual feedback is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the qwen-vl-max integration properly implemented for image recognition?",
+      "description": "Check if the code properly integrates with qwen-vl-max for intelligent visual features (such as recognizing room occupancy from images, detecting equipment in meeting rooms, or processing floor plans). Deduct 5 points if the integration is superficial, 3 points if error handling for API calls is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the booking information display and editing functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether users can view detailed booking information (meeting title, time, participants, room details) and edit this information with proper validation. Check for real-time updates and conflict prevention. Deduct 5 points if editing lacks validation, 3 points if the display is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there intelligent recommendation or optimization in the booking system?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system includes AI-powered features such as room recommendations based on meeting size, equipment needs, or user preferences; smart conflict resolution; or predictive scheduling. Deduct 5 points if recommendations are generic, 3 points if user preferences aren't considered. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, concurrent bookings, invalid user inputs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time room availability indicators 2. Meeting analytics dashboard 3. Integration with calendar systems 4. Voice commands for booking). 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 calendar components) 2. Function modules unrelated to meeting room booking (e.g., a news feed) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 3D 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 booking logic/UI components/API services), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) 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/intelligent-turtle-tank-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1459,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to generate executable code for demonstration when possible. Create an intelligent turtle tank management system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the turtle tank monitoring system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements essential monitoring functionalities such as water temperature, pH level, clarity sensors, and automatic alerts. Score 0 if the core monitoring logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic parameter tracking is included, and 10 if comprehensive monitoring with threshold-based alerts is fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the automated feeding system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes a scheduling mechanism for feeding, portion control, and feeding history logs. Verify if there's a manual override option and emergency protocols if the feeding system malfunctions. Deduct 3 points if scheduling is inflexible, 3 points if portion control isn't implemented, and 4 points if there's no failure handling mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the water quality maintenance system implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system includes water filtration control, water change scheduling, and water quality trend analysis. Check if there are automatic responses to water quality degradation and predictive maintenance alerts. Deduct 5 points if automatic responses are missing and 5 points if trend analysis isn't implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the turtle health monitoring and tracking system designed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes functionalities for tracking individual turtle data (weight, size, activity levels, feeding patterns), health anomaly detection, and growth visualization tools. Deduct 3 points if individual tracking is absent, 4 points if health anomaly detection isn't implemented, and 3 points if there's no historical data visualization. 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 sensor failures, power outages, connectivity issues, or hardware malfunctions) and provide failsafe mechanisms or recovery procedures. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle 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-based turtle behavior analysis 2. Augmented reality view of the tank ecosystem 3. Voice-controlled system commands). 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 notification systems that serve the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to turtle care (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Resource-intensive features that affect system performance (e.g., unnecessary high-definition video processing). 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 (separating sensor/control/UI layers), test coverage for critical functions (especially safety-related ones), and deployment configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if error handling is inconsistent or inadequate; deduct 5 points if there's no configuration for different deployment environments. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the dashboard design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching that prioritizes data readability 2) Proper layout with critical information prominently displayed 3) Consistent iconography and information hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for cluttered displays, 5 points for poor color choices that reduce readability, and 5 points for confusing navigation between system functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system interactions meet usability standards: 1) Real-time data updates without UI freezing 2) Clear visual feedback for user actions 3) Intuitive control flows for routine tasks. Deduct 5 points for laggy or freezing interfaces, 3 points for confusing action confirmations, and 5 points for requiring excessive clicks for common tasks. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/inventory-management-app-with-pricing-and-time.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 734,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please utilize your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code when possible. Can you help me design an inventory management app? It should include features for tracking purchase prices, sales prices, and time-related information.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the inventory data management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements inventory item tracking with proper data structures for storing purchase prices, sales prices, quantities, and time-related information (purchase date, expiry date, last updated). Check if CRUD operations are properly implemented with data validation. Score 0 if core inventory operations are missing, 5 if only basic add/remove is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive inventory management with price tracking and temporal data is fully included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the price tracking and profit calculation functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system includes accurate purchase price recording, sales price management, and automatic profit margin calculations. Verify if price history tracking is implemented and supports multiple pricing tiers. Deduct 5 points if profit calculations are incorrect, and 3 points if price history is not maintained. Evaluate whether bulk pricing and discount mechanisms are handled properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is comprehensive time-based tracking and reporting designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system implements proper timestamp management for all inventory operations, including purchase dates, sales transactions, and stock movements. Check if time-based reports (daily, weekly, monthly sales) are generated accurately. Deduct 5 points if date filtering is not functional. Verify if expiry date tracking and low-stock alerts based on time thresholds are implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is data persistence and backup mechanism constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes reliable data storage solutions (localStorage, IndexedDB, or server-side database integration) with proper data serialization. Evaluate if backup and restore functionality is implemented to prevent data loss. Deduct 5 points if data persistence is unreliable, and 3 points if no backup mechanism exists. Verify if data export/import features (CSV, JSON) are available. Give 10 points if fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid price inputs, negative quantities, date format errors, data corruption, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should validate all user inputs, handle edge cases gracefully, and provide clear error messages. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points if robustness is average, and 0 points if no exceptions are handled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes value-added features that enhance inventory management (e.g., 1. Barcode scanning integration 2. Automated reorder point calculations 3. Supplier comparison tools 4. Mobile-responsive design 5. Advanced analytics dashboard). Evaluate practical utility and implementation quality. Add 3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (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 price calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to inventory management (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive animations or effects that slow down inventory operations. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core inventory functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data layer/business logic/presentation layers), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper architecture patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no error logging or debugging mechanisms exist. Evaluate if the codebase follows consistent naming conventions and documentation standards. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI design follows modern business application principles: 1) Professional color scheme suitable for business use (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper data table layout with clear hierarchy (consistent spacing following 8px grid) 3) Readable typography system (body font ≥ 14px, proper contrast ratios). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered interface element, 5 points for unprofessional color choices, and 5 points for poor data presentation layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and efficient?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interface interactions optimize workflow efficiency: 1) Form submission feedback ≤ 100ms 2) Data loading transitions between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for all user actions 4) Efficient keyboard shortcuts for common operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for slow data table rendering, and 5 points for confusing navigation or hard-to-find essential functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}