@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/react-company-portal-website.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 320,
+  "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. Build a company portal website using React.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core React component architecture properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code follows React best practices with proper component hierarchy, separation of concerns, and state management. Check for functional components with hooks rather than class components, proper prop drilling or context usage, and implementation of reusable components. Score 0 if React fundamentals are missing, 5 if basic components exist but lack organization, and 10 if components are well-structured with clear responsibilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is routing functionality implemented effectively?",
+      "description": "Check if React Router (or equivalent) is properly configured with nested routes, route parameters, protected routes for admin sections, and proper navigation handling. Verify if there's a 404 page and that history navigation works correctly. Deduct 5 points if only basic routing is implemented without nested routes, 3 points if navigation state isn't preserved, and 2 points if there's no route protection for sensitive areas.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are key company portal pages and sections included?",
+      "description": "Verify the implementation of essential company portal sections: Homepage with company overview, About/Team page, Services/Products section, Contact form, News/Blog section, and Career opportunities. Each missing critical section deducts 2 points. Score 10 if all essential sections are present with proper content structure and information hierarchy.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there state management for complex data flows?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether appropriate state management solutions (Context API, Redux, Zustand, etc.) are implemented for global state. Check if data fetching is handled with proper loading/error states and if caching strategies are used. Deduct 5 points if global state is handled improperly, 3 points if there's no loading/error handling, and 2 points if no data persistence strategy exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as API failures, slow connections, invalid user inputs) and provide friendly error boundaries or fallback UIs. Code with strong robustness should implement form validation, handle API timeouts gracefully, and prevent common React pitfalls like infinite render loops. Give 10 points if edge cases are thoroughly handled, 5 points if basic error handling exists, and 0 points if no error handling is implemented.",
+      "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. Dark/light theme toggle 2. Personalized dashboard for logged-in users 3. Interactive company timeline 4. Multilingual support). 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 implementations of similar functionalities 2. Unnecessary third-party packages for simple tasks 3. Over-engineered solutions for basic requirements. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core performance is compromised by excessive features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review code organization (proper folder structure, component naming conventions), testing implementation, and build configuration. Deduct 5 points if component organization is chaotic; deduct 3 points if there are no tests; deduct 2 points if there's no proper build optimization. Check for TypeScript usage or PropTypes for type checking, deducting 3 points if neither is used. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI implementation follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent component styling with a theme system 2) Responsive design for all screen sizes 3) Accessible UI elements with proper ARIA attributes 4) Consistent spacing and typography system. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 3 points for non-responsive layouts, and 4 points for accessibility issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether interactions provide appropriate feedback: 1) Form submission states clearly indicated 2) Navigation transitions are smooth 3) Interactive elements have hover/focus states 4) Loading states prevent UI jumping. Deduct 3 points for each missing feedback mechanism, 2 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. Check if interactions work on both mouse and keyboard navigation, deducting 5 points for keyboard accessibility issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/react-material-design-marketing-automation-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1055,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to provide accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code generated is executable when possible. Develop a marketing automation system using React technology and Material Design that provides the following functions:\n1. User management\n2. Message template management, where during editing, an AI assistant helps generate marketing text messages/SMS copy",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the React application structure properly implemented with best practices?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code follows React best practices including: proper component structure (presentational vs container components), appropriate use of hooks (useState, useEffect, useContext), implementation of React Router for navigation, and correct state management (Context API or Redux). Deduct 3 points if components are not properly modularized, 3 points for incorrect hook usage, and 4 points for poor state management. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Material Design implementation correct and comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check if the application correctly implements Material Design principles using either Material-UI (MUI) or another Material Design library. Verify proper use of components (Button, Card, Dialog, etc.), consistent theming, responsive layouts, and adherence to Material Design specifications. Award 10 points for complete implementation with custom theming, 5 points for basic implementation with standard components only, and 0 points if Material Design principles are not followed.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the user management system fully functional?",
+      "description": "Assess if the user management system includes essential CRUD operations, role-based access control, profile management, and secure authentication. Check for form validation, error handling, and proper data persistence. Award 10 points for a comprehensive system with all features, deduct 3 points for missing role management, 3 points for inadequate form validation, and 2 points for poor error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the message template management system with AI integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the template management system including: CRUD operations for templates, categorization, preview functionality, and most importantly, AI-assisted content generation. Check if the AI integration uses proper API calls, handles response states (loading/error/success), and allows user editing of AI suggestions. Award 10 points for full implementation, 5 points if AI integration is basic, and 0 points if AI assistance is missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, form validation failures, API 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. Real-time collaboration on templates 2. A/B testing capabilities for messages 3. Analytics dashboard for message performance). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple authentication systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to marketing automation (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/business logic/API 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 (following Material Design color system) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). 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": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/real-time-interface-monitor-agent-status-planning-learning.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1198,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and expert responses. Pay attention to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please also add a real-time interface that can monitor the agent's operational status, consciousness state, planning, learning categories, and learning progress, then generate the complete code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the AI agent core architecture fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a complete agent system including perception, decision-making, action execution, and learning modules. Check if the agent has proper state management, goal setting, and task execution capabilities. Score 0 if core agent logic is missing, 5 if only basic state machine is implemented, and 10 if full autonomous agent architecture with modular design is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the real-time monitoring interface comprehensively designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the monitoring dashboard includes all required components: operational status display, consciousness state visualization, planning process tracking, learning category breakdown, and progress indicators. Interface must update in real-time with WebSocket or similar technology. Deduct 5 points if any core monitoring component is missing, 3 points if real-time updates lag over 500ms. Full score requires live data streaming and interactive controls.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the agent's consciousness state and planning mechanisms properly visualized?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code provides clear visualization of the agent's internal decision-making process, including current goals, active plans, decision trees, and reasoning chains. Must include visual representations like flowcharts, state diagrams, or mind maps. Deduct 5 points if consciousness state is only text-based, 3 points if planning visualization lacks interactivity. Requires dynamic updates showing thought processes in real-time.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the learning system with progress tracking fully functional?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the agent implements actual learning algorithms (reinforcement learning, neural networks, or adaptive algorithms) with categorized learning modules and measurable progress metrics. Must include learning rate visualization, skill acquisition tracking, and performance improvement graphs. Deduct 5 points if learning is simulated rather than functional, 3 points if progress metrics are not quantifiable or visualized.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as agent state corruption, monitoring interface disconnection, learning algorithm convergence failures, invalid user inputs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include error boundaries, graceful degradation, and automatic recovery. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling.",
+      "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 agent monitoring experience (e.g., 1. 3D visualization of agent's neural network 2. Voice narration of agent's thoughts 3. Predictive analytics of agent behavior 4. Interactive agent training controls 5. Multi-agent comparison dashboards). 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 monitoring functions (e.g., multiple progress bars for same metric) 2. Feature modules unrelated to agent monitoring (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex 3D animations that slow down real-time updates). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core monitoring functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separating agent logic/monitoring interface/data processing layers), proper state management, and scalable architecture. Check for design patterns usage, code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or poor separation of concerns; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points if no proper error logging or debugging capabilities. Full score requires clean architecture and professional coding standards.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional dashboard design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the monitoring dashboard follows modern UI/UX principles: 1) Information hierarchy with clear visual grouping 2) Consistent color coding for different agent states 3) Proper data visualization techniques (charts, graphs, indicators) 4) Responsive layout that works on different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered section, 5 points for poor color choices that harm readability, and 5 points for inconsistent visual design patterns.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the real-time interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the monitoring interface provides seamless real-time experience: 1) Data updates without screen flickering 2) Smooth transitions between different monitoring views 3) Responsive controls for interacting with agent 4) Clear feedback for user actions 5) Intuitive navigation between monitoring sections. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for confusing navigation, and 5 points for poor visual feedback on user actions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/real-time-job-recruitment-software.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 830,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Build a page recruitment software where job positions are updated in real-time.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the real-time job position update system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements WebSocket or Server-Sent Events for real-time job position updates. Check if the system handles new job postings, position modifications, and removals properly. Score 0 if real-time functionality is not implemented, 5 if basic polling is used instead of true real-time solutions, and 10 if a complete real-time system with proper event handling is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the job listing display and filtering functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code provides comprehensive job listing features including sorting (by date, relevance, salary), filtering (by industry, location, experience level, etc.), and pagination. Deduct 3 points if sorting options are limited, 3 points if filtering is basic or missing key filters, and 4 points if pagination is absent or poorly implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the job search functionality effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the search feature includes full-text search, keyword highlighting, autocomplete suggestions, and search history. Assess if the search algorithm handles typos and provides relevant results. Deduct 3 points if autocomplete is missing, 3 points if the search doesn't handle partial matches or typos, and 4 points if search results aren't properly ranked by relevance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a complete user account and job application system?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes user registration/login, profile management, resume upload/management, application tracking, and saved job functionality. Deduct 3 points if authentication is basic or insecure, 3 points if profile/resume management is limited, and 4 points if the application tracking system is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, server errors, invalid inputs, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper input validation, error boundary implementation, and offline capabilities. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if exceptions are not handled.",
+      "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 job matching 2. Interactive salary comparison tools 3. Company culture insights visualization 4. Interview preparation resources). 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) 2. Function modules unrelated to recruitment (e.g., a news feed unrelated to jobs) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow page loading). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/UI/service layers), component reusability, state management implementation, and build process optimization. Deduct 3 points if global state management is poorly implemented, 3 points if code reusability is low with high duplication, and 4 points if the build process lacks optimization for performance. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern recruitment platform principles: 1) Clean, professional color scheme appropriate for job searching 2) Consistent spacing and alignment throughout 3) Typography hierarchy that enhances readability of job listings. Deduct 3 points for cluttered job cards, 3 points for inconsistent button styles/behaviors, and 4 points for poor information hierarchy that makes scanning jobs difficult. 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) New job notifications appear without disrupting user flow 2) Job application process feels seamless with appropriate feedback 3) Filtering/sorting actions update results with minimal perceived delay. Deduct 3 points for jarring transitions between pages, 3 points for lack of loading states during data fetching, and 4 points for unresponsive interface elements during real-time updates. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/replicate-element-plus-vue3-typescript-no-dependencies.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1211,
+  "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. Completely replicate Element Plus based on Vue3 and TypeScript, without depending on any third-party libraries.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is there a complete implementation of the core Element Plus component structure?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core components of Element Plus including Button, Form, Table, Dialog, Notification, etc. Score 0 if less than 10 basic components are implemented, 5 if at least 20 components with basic functionality are implemented, and 10 if more than 30 components with full functionality matching Element Plus specifications are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3 Composition API correctly utilized?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation properly leverages Vue3's Composition API features (ref, reactive, computed, watch, etc.) and lifecycle hooks. Deduct 5 points if still primarily using Options API, 3 points if Composition API is used but with anti-patterns (such as reactive wrapping of already reactive objects). Check if proper component setup() patterns and <script setup> syntax is utilized where appropriate.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is TypeScript properly implemented throughout the codebase?",
+      "description": "Assess the TypeScript implementation quality including proper interfaces, types, generics, and type guards. Check for strict typing with proper definition files. Deduct 5 points if any component lacks type definitions, 3 points if type 'any' is overused, and 5 points if TypeScript configurations lack strictness. Full score requires comprehensive typing system similar to original Element Plus.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a comprehensive theming and customization system?",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation includes Element Plus's CSS variable-based theming system, allowing for global theme configuration and component-level customization. Verify if SCSS/CSS preprocessing is handled correctly for theming. Deduct 5 points if the theme system is missing, 3 points if it's implemented but not configurable at runtime, and 2 points if it doesn't support dark mode.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid props, edge cases in component states, error boundaries, etc.) and provide friendly error handling. Check if components gracefully handle unexpected input types, empty states, and overflowing content. Deduct 3 points for each critical robustness issue found (maximum 10 points deduction).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features beyond Element Plus functionality that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Advanced state persistence 2. Enhanced accessibility beyond original implementation 3. Performance optimizations like virtual scrolling). 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 popup mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to UI components (e.g., built-in state management) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating component logic/view/utils), test coverage, and build process. Check if components are properly decoupled and follow a consistent file structure. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no proper build configuration. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the component styling exactly matches Element Plus specifications: 1) Consistent spacing and sizing systems 2) Correct color palette implementation 3) Typography system matches Element Plus. Compare screenshots of rendered components with original Element Plus. Deduct 3 points for each visually inconsistent component, 5 points for incorrect spacing systems, and 5 points for mismatched color variables. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether interactive components match Element Plus behavior: 1) Transitions/animations match duration and easing of originals 2) Hover/focus states properly implemented 3) Mobile touch interactions properly supported. Deduct 5 points for each animation that differs significantly from Element Plus, 3 points for missing interactive states, and 5 points for components that don't work properly on touch devices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/report-chart-configuration-page-with-custom-metrics.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 721,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Please regenerate the front-end for the report and chart configuration page. Requirements: 1) Include custom metrics, custom reports, and custom charts. Please refer to other successful cases. I want to implement a complex statistical report. After configuration is complete, it should be possible to see the configuration style of the report.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the custom metrics configuration functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code provides a complete custom metrics definition interface, including metric name, data source, calculation formula, filtering conditions, and aggregation methods. Check if the interface supports complex metric composition (derived metrics based on other metrics). Score 0 if the core metric definition logic is missing, 5 if only basic metric definition is available, and 10 if advanced features like conditional metrics and calculated fields are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the custom reports configuration system comprehensively designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the report configuration includes essential elements such as title, description, time range selector, refresh intervals, sharing permissions, and export options. Check if the code implements template selection, layout customization, and conditional formatting rules. Deduct 5 points if saved report states cannot be restored, and 3 points if dynamic filtering is not available. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the custom charts visualization system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code supports a variety of chart types (at minimum: line, bar, pie, scatter, table, heatmap) with appropriate configuration options for each type. Verify that chart customization includes axis labels, legends, tooltips, color schemes, and interactive features (zoom, drill-down, etc.). Deduct 5 points if responsive design for different screen sizes is missing, and 3 points if accessibility features are not considered. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the configuration preview/live update mechanism implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify whether the code provides real-time preview functionality as users configure their reports and charts. Check if configuration changes immediately reflect in the visualization without requiring page reloads. The implementation should include data caching mechanisms and optimized rendering to prevent performance issues. Give 10 points for seamless live updates with minimal latency, 5 points if updates require manual refresh, and 0 if preview functionality is missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid configurations, data loading failures, empty datasets, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-suggested visualizations based on data patterns 2. Natural language query to generate reports 3. Collaborative editing with change history). 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 configuration options (e.g., multiple ways to set the same property) 2. Function modules unrelated to reporting (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the configuration interface). 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 configuration logic/visualization rendering/data handling layers), component reusability, and state management approaches. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between presentation and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. 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": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/report-overview-page-prototype.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1112,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate can be executed properly. As a product manager, you need to create a page prototype for a short report overview. The page should present the following information: user overview, product overview, resource overview, key work order indicators, key business indicators, service activation order overview, service order overview, fault order overview and other key statistical information, SLA degradation events statistics, and inspection abnormal events statistics. Please expand appropriately based on each display content and provide an HTML page.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the dashboard structure comprehensive and well-organized?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the HTML structure provides all 10 required sections: user overview, product overview, resource overview, key work order indicators, key business indicators, service activation order overview, service order overview, fault order overview, SLA degradation events statistics, and inspection abnormal events statistics. Each section should have clear headers and be logically organized in the page layout. Score 0 if fewer than 7 sections are implemented, 5 if 7-9 sections are present but poorly organized, and 10 if all 10 sections are implemented with logical grouping and clear visual hierarchy.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the data visualization appropriate for each content type?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements appropriate chart types for different data: line charts for trends, bar charts for comparisons, pie/donut charts for proportions, tables for detailed data, cards for KPIs, etc. Each visualization should match its data type and purpose. Deduct 2 points for each major section using inappropriate visualization types. Score 0 if most visualizations are inappropriate, 5 if basic visualizations are used but not optimized for data types, and 10 if all visualizations are appropriate and enhance data comprehension.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the dashboard interactive and provides drill-down capabilities?",
+      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes interactive elements like filters, date range selectors, tooltips on hover, and drill-down capabilities for deeper analysis. Evaluate if the interactions enhance data exploration. Score 0 if no interactive elements are present, 5 if basic interactions (like tooltips) exist but lack meaningful drill-down capabilities, and 10 if comprehensive interactive features are implemented with proper state management for user selections.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the dashboard provide data loading, refresh mechanisms, and error handling?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements proper data loading mechanisms (Ajax/Fetch), provides refresh capabilities (manual or automatic), displays loading states, and handles data loading errors gracefully. The implementation should include placeholders during loading and user-friendly error messages. Deduct 5 points if no loading states are shown, 3 points if error handling is missing, and 2 points if refresh functionality isn't implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty data sets, malformed data, browser compatibility issues, responsive layout breakpoints, 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 data updates with visual transitions 2. Cross-section data correlation highlighting 3. Customizable dashboard layout with drag-and-drop). 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 visualizations (e.g., multiple chart libraries used for similar charts) 2. Overcomplicated features unrelated to the dashboard purpose (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Heavy visual effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive transitions or 3D effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core dashboard functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/view/controller layers), code reusability for similar components, and build optimization. Deduct 5 points if global variables are excessively used or proper JavaScript patterns are not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization measures are implemented (like efficient DOM manipulation). 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 dashboard design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with a consistent color scheme 2) Proper layout spacing and grid system 3) Professional typography hierarchy (contrasting sizes for headers vs. data). Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent design element, 5 points for visually overwhelming information density, and 5 points for poor contrast that affects readability. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dashboard responsive and accessible?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the implementation works across different screen sizes and meets basic accessibility standards: 1) Responsive layout with appropriate breakpoints 2) Semantic HTML with proper ARIA attributes 3) Sufficient color contrast and keyboard navigation support. Deduct 5 points if the layout breaks on mobile or tablet views, 3 points for each major accessibility violation, and 5 points if screen readers cannot interpret the dashboard content properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/residential-community-file-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 689,
+  "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.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I will provide you with a software development requirement description, and you should generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with clear and simple annotations, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot execute or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements include external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDevelop a residential community file management system for a property management company. Property staff can upload community-related files (such as announcements, maintenance records) through the frontend page, and homeowners can log in to view these files. The system should provide a file commenting feature, allowing homeowners to comment on files.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the complete file management system architecture implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code establishes a full-stack architecture for file management, including upload/download functionality, file storage mechanisms, proper permissions control, and file metadata management. Score 0 if only partial components are implemented, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks proper integration, and 10 if the system includes proper database schema, API endpoints, frontend-backend integration, and storage solutions.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and role-based access control system implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements separate authentication workflows for property staff and homeowners with appropriate role-based permissions. Property staff should have upload privileges while homeowners have view-only access. Examine if the authentication system includes secure password handling, session management, and token validation. Deduct 5 points if authorization checks are missing, 3 points if role separation is incomplete, and 2 points if session handling is insecure. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the file upload and management functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper file upload mechanisms with validation (file type restrictions, size limits), categorization capabilities, version control, and search functionality. Check if property staff can properly categorize uploads as announcements, maintenance records, etc. Deduct 3 points if file validation is missing, 3 points if categorization is not implemented, and 4 points if search functionality is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the commenting system fully functional?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code implements a complete commenting system allowing homeowners to add, view, edit, and delete comments on files. Check if the system includes timestamps, user identification, and potentially nested replies. Evaluate if comment notifications are provided to relevant parties. Deduct 3 points if edit/delete functionality is missing, 3 points if user identification is inadequate, and 4 points if the system doesn't handle comment displays properly. 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 file types, network interruption, user operation errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time notification system for new uploads 2. Document preview functionality 3. Mobile responsiveness with offline access capability). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple file upload methods with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to community management (e.g., a built-in game section) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when browsing files). 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 access/business logic/presentation 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 (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"
+}