@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/scheduling-application-mini-program-multi-people-multi-shifts.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1504,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and expert responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable and can be demonstrated. I want to design a scheduling application mini-program that can support multiple people and multiple types of shifts. Please provide the HTML implementation and instructions on how to use it.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the multi-person schedule management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete scheduling system that allows adding, editing, and deleting multiple users and shift types. Check if it includes user management features (adding/removing users, assigning roles/permissions). Score 0 if core scheduling functionality is missing, 5 if only basic scheduling is implemented, and 10 if it includes comprehensive user management with different permission levels.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are multiple shift types supported with proper visualization?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code supports defining and displaying various shift types (morning/evening/night shifts, on-call, vacation, etc.) with distinct visual indicators (colors, icons, patterns). Check if shifts can be customized with properties like duration, priority, and constraints. Deduct 5 points if only fixed shift types are available, 3 points if visual differentiation is poor. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is conflict detection and resolution functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the system detects scheduling conflicts (double-booking, insufficient rest periods, exceeding working hour limits) and provides resolution methods. Verify if there are warnings for potential issues (approaching overtime, uneven distribution). Deduct 5 points if conflict detection is missing, 3 points if only basic detection without resolution options is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the calendar view implementation interactive and user-friendly?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the calendar supports multiple views (daily, weekly, monthly) with drag-and-drop functionality for schedule adjustments. Check if it includes features like zooming, filtering, and aggregated views. Deduct 5 points if only one view is available, 3 points if interactive features are limited. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid date inputs, overlapping shifts, concurrent schedule modifications, 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-assisted schedule optimization 2. Automatic fair distribution of undesirable shifts 3. Mobile notification system for schedule changes 4. Integration with external calendar systems). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple calendar libraries used simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to scheduling (e.g., built-in messaging system that's not scheduling-related) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or visual effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components/state management/data services), use of appropriate design patterns, code reusability, 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 there's tight coupling between components. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with clear shift type differentiation 2) Proper layout spacing for calendar cells and control panels 3) Professional typography system with adequate text hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for conflicting or confusing color schemes, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate visual feedback when adding/editing shifts 2) Smooth transitions between calendar views 3) Intuitive drag-and-drop interactions with appropriate animations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy transitions during view changes, and 5 points for unintuitive scheduling controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/school-academic-administration-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 505,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable when possible. Please design a school academic administration system that includes modules for student information management, teacher information management, course management, and grade management. The system should support functions like student course selection, teacher scheduling, grade entry and inquiry. Administrators should be able to set semester information, import student lists, assign homeroom teachers, etc. The system should also provide grade analysis functions, including class rankings, average score statistics, pass rate calculations, etc., and support generating various academic reports.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the student information management module fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes comprehensive student data models (with fields like student ID, name, gender, class, admission date, contact information) and CRUD operations. Check if the module supports batch imports, advanced search filtering, and student status tracking (active, graduated, suspended). Score 0 if basic student information storage is missing, 5 if only basic CRUD operations are implemented, and 10 if the module includes comprehensive student lifecycle management with data validation and privacy controls.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the teacher information management and scheduling system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements teacher profiles (including ID, name, department, qualifications, teaching subjects) and scheduling functionality. Check if the system handles teacher availability constraints, workload balancing, and conflict detection when assigning classes. Deduct 3 points if teacher qualification verification is missing, 3 points if scheduling conflicts aren't automatically detected, and 4 points if workload reports are not available. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the course management system complete and flexible?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a robust course catalog with prerequisites, credit hours, classroom assignments, and enrollment caps. Check if the system handles course dependencies, scheduling across multiple semesters, and supports different course types (required/elective). Deduct 3 points if prerequisite checking is missing, 3 points if time conflict resolution isn't implemented, and 4 points if the system doesn't support curriculum planning across academic years. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the grade management and analysis functions comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements grade entry, verification workflows, and analysis tools. Check if the system calculates GPA, class rankings, grade distributions, and historical performance trends. Verify if it handles different grading schemes (percentage, letter grades, pass/fail). Deduct 3 points if grade verification workflows are missing, 3 points if analytical reports lack visualization, and 4 points if the system doesn't support customizable grading schemes. 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 duplicate entries, invalid inputs, concurrent data modifications, system crashes) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for input validation, error handling, transaction management, and data integrity constraints. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered early warning system for at-risk students 2. Mobile app integration for real-time notifications 3. Interactive academic progress dashboards 4. Predictive analytics for course planning). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple user management systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to academic administration (e.g., a built-in social networking platform) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations in data entry forms). 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 architectural patterns (such as MVC, layered architecture), code organization, database normalization, and security implementation. Check for proper authentication, authorization, audit logging, and input sanitization. Deduct 3 points if secure coding practices are missing; deduct 4 points if the database schema is poorly designed with redundancies; deduct 3 points if there's no separation between business logic and presentation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent UI components across modules 2) Clear visual hierarchy and information architecture 3) Responsive design for different devices 4) Accessible design for users with disabilities. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent UI elements, 3 points for poor information organization, 2 points for non-responsive layouts, and 2 points for accessibility issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the system architecture scalable and maintainable?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system architecture can handle growing data volumes and user numbers: 1) Database indexing and query optimization 2) Caching strategies for frequently accessed data 3) Modular design allowing feature extensions 4) API design for potential integrations. Deduct 3 points for lack of performance optimization, 3 points for monolithic architecture difficult to extend, 2 points for missing documentation, and 2 points for absence of testing frameworks. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/security-center-federated-learning-audit-tracker.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 842,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Security Center 3.7\n\n## Core Functional Modules:\n\n### Federated Learning Console\n- Participant Status Dashboard (Heartbeat Detection)\n- Encryption Protocol Performance Monitoring (e.g., Paillier encryption time consumption curves)\n\n### Audit Tracker\n- Operation Replay Function: Frame-by-frame playback of user operations along a timeline\n- Difference Highlighting: Such as parameter comparison before and after configuration changes",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Federated Learning Console fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the participant status dashboard accurately displays real-time heartbeat detection with proper connection state visualization. Check if encryption protocol performance monitoring includes comprehensive metrics display (Paillier encryption time curves, throughput graphs, error rates). Score 0 if dashboard lacks real-time updates, 5 if only basic status display is implemented, and 10 if complete monitoring with historical data analysis is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Audit Tracker operation replay function properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the frame-by-frame playback system includes precise timeline control, step-by-step operation reconstruction, and smooth playback/pause functionality. Check for operation filtering capabilities and timeline scrubbing. Deduct 5 points if playback lacks accuracy, 3 points if timeline navigation is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the difference highlighting system comprehensively designed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether parameter comparison functionality includes visual diff rendering, side-by-side comparison views, and change impact analysis. Check for color-coded modifications, expandable nested object comparisons, and export capabilities. Deduct 5 points if visual highlighting is poor, 3 points if complex nested changes aren't handled properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the security center data architecture robust and scalable?",
+      "description": "Review whether the system implements proper data persistence, real-time synchronization, and efficient querying mechanisms for audit logs and federated learning metrics. Check for data encryption at rest, proper indexing strategies, and backup mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if data integrity isn't guaranteed, 3 points if query performance is suboptimal. Give 10 points if fully implemented with enterprise-grade security.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network timeouts, invalid data formats, concurrent access conflicts, encryption failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases in security-critical environments, giving 10 points. If 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 security monitoring experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered anomaly detection alerts 2. Interactive 3D network topology visualization 3. Predictive performance analytics 4. Custom dashboard widgets). 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 heartbeat detection mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to security monitoring (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Fancy effects that impact dashboard performance (e.g., excessive animations on critical monitoring displays). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core security 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 monitoring logic/visualization/data layers), security best practices implementation, and automated testing coverage. Deduct 5 points if sensitive data handling violations are found or security patterns aren't followed; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points if no automated security testing is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet enterprise security dashboard standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows enterprise dashboard principles: 1) Professional color scheme suitable for security monitoring (high contrast, accessibility compliant) 2) Information hierarchy with proper data density (critical alerts prominently displayed) 3) Consistent iconography and typography system (readable at various screen sizes). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered information panel, 5 points for poor color accessibility, and 5 points for inconsistent visual language. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Are the real-time updates and interactions responsive and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether real-time features meet monitoring system requirements: 1) Dashboard updates with minimal latency (<500ms for critical alerts) 2) Smooth transitions for data refresh without disrupting user focus 3) Intuitive drill-down interactions for detailed analysis. Deduct 5 points for each delayed critical notification, 3 points for jarring update animations, and 5 points for non-intuitive navigation between monitoring views. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/sensor-calibration-multi-page-gui.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1363,
+  "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. I want to design a GUI for sensor calibration, such as camera intrinsic calibration, camera-to-LiDAR extrinsic calibration, and LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration, with each task on a separate page.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the multi-page GUI architecture implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a clean multi-page architecture with separate pages for camera intrinsic calibration, camera-to-LiDAR extrinsic calibration, and LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration. Check for proper navigation between pages, consistent layout framework, and state management across different calibration workflows. Score 0 if pages are not separated, 5 if basic page separation exists but with navigation issues, and 10 if a complete, smooth multi-page system is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the camera intrinsic calibration functionality complete?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of camera intrinsic calibration features, including checkerboard pattern detection, multiple image collection interface, calibration parameter visualization, and reprojection error analysis. Check for essential operations like image upload/capture, automatic corner detection with visual feedback, and parameter output (focal length, principal point, distortion coefficients). Deduct 5 points if corner detection visualization is missing, 3 points if reprojection error analysis is absent, and 2 points if parameter export functionality is not provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the camera-to-LiDAR extrinsic calibration implementation comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess the camera-to-LiDAR calibration functionality, including point cloud and image visualization, feature correspondence selection, transformation matrix computation, and calibration quality evaluation. Check for interactive point selection in both modalities, visualization of projection results, and optimization workflow. Deduct 5 points if real-time visualization of registration results is missing, 3 points if error metrics are not displayed, and 2 points if the workflow doesn't allow for refinement iterations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration module, including point cloud loading and visualization, feature extraction for alignment, ICP or NDT algorithm implementation, and transformation validation. Check for interactive adjustment capabilities, multi-view visualization (top-down, side views), and quantitative alignment metrics. Deduct 5 points if point cloud visualization lacks proper controls (zoom, rotation, translation), 3 points if automatic alignment algorithms are missing, and 2 points if alignment quality metrics are not provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid image inputs, corrupt point cloud data, calibration failures, 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 calibration experience (e.g., 1. Real-time calibration quality visualization 2. Automatic calibration target detection 3. Calibration history comparison 4. AR visualization of sensor alignment). 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 calibration algorithms 2. Function modules unrelated to sensor calibration 3. Fancy visualization effects that adversely impact performance or usability. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core calibration 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 calibration algorithms/UI/data processing 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 suitable for technical applications 2) Proper layout spacing with clear separation between visualization and control areas 3) Professional font system with clear labeling of technical parameters. Deduct 3 points for cluttered calibration controls, 5 points for poor contrast that makes data hard to read, and 5 points for inconsistent layout across different calibration pages. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive for technical users?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interface provides appropriate interaction for sensor calibration: 1) Clear visual feedback during calibration steps 2) Intuitive controls for point selection and adjustment 3) Responsive visualization updates after parameter changes. Deduct 5 points for calibration operations without visual feedback, 3 points for laggy point cloud rendering during interaction, and 5 points for unintuitive calibration workflow that would confuse technical users. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/shadcn-frontend-architecture.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 903,
+  "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. Quickly create a frontend architecture based on shadcn.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the shadcn/ui framework correctly integrated and configured?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly initializes shadcn/ui with correct Tailwind CSS configuration, components.json setup, and proper CLI installation. Check if the theme provider is correctly implemented with dark/light mode support. Score 0 if shadcn is not properly configured, 5 if basic setup exists but missing theme configuration, and 10 if complete integration with proper theming system is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are shadcn components properly implemented and customized?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation includes at least 5 different shadcn components (Button, Input, Card, Dialog, etc.) with proper imports and usage. Check if components are customized using the built-in variant system and className overrides. Deduct 3 points for each improperly imported component, 5 points if no component customization is shown. Full score requires diverse component usage with proper styling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the frontend architecture well-structured and scalable?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code demonstrates a clear folder structure with proper separation of components, hooks, utils, and types. Evaluate if React best practices are followed including proper component composition, custom hooks usage, and state management. Deduct 5 points if components are not properly separated, 3 points if no custom hooks are implemented, 5 points if the folder structure is chaotic. Full score requires enterprise-level architecture.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation showcase modern React patterns and TypeScript integration?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code uses modern React patterns like functional components, hooks, context API, and proper TypeScript typing. Check for proper interface definitions, generic types usage, and type safety. Score 0 if plain JavaScript is used, 5 if basic TypeScript without proper typing, 10 if comprehensive TypeScript integration with proper type definitions and modern React patterns.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as component loading failures, prop validation errors, API call failures, etc.) and provide friendly error boundaries or fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include error boundaries, loading states, and proper error handling, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no error handling exists, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes impressive features that showcase shadcn's capabilities (e.g., 1. Advanced form validation with react-hook-form integration 2. Complex data tables with sorting/filtering 3. Interactive dashboard components 4. Custom theme switching mechanisms). 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 UI components (e.g., multiple button variations without purpose) 2. Unnecessary third-party libraries when shadcn components exist 3. Over-engineered solutions for simple UI tasks. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with the clean architecture demonstration.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design, proper import/export patterns, ESLint/Prettier configuration, and build process setup. Check for proper component reusability, consistent naming conventions, and clean code principles. Deduct 5 points if component props are not properly typed; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is high (over 20%); deduct 5 points if no linting configuration is provided. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the shadcn implementation follows design system principles: 1) Consistent use of design tokens and CSS variables 2) Proper spacing using Tailwind's spacing scale 3) Coherent typography hierarchy using shadcn's text utilities 4) Accessible color contrast ratios. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent spacing, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for typography hierarchy issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the shadcn components demonstrate proper interaction states: 1) Hover states and focus indicators working correctly 2) Loading states and skeleton screens implemented 3) Smooth transitions using shadcn's built-in animations 4) Proper keyboard navigation support. Deduct 5 points for missing interaction states, 3 points for jarring animations, and 5 points for poor accessibility support. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/shared-bicycle-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1506,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the generated code executable for demonstration. Help me write a shared bicycle management system, including the process and code.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the bicycle management core system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements bicycle inventory management, user registration/authentication, rental/return processes, and billing calculations through a complete tech stack. Must include bicycle status tracking (available/rented/maintenance), location-based search, and real-time availability updates. Score 0 if core CRUD operations are missing, 5 if only basic rental logic is implemented, and 10 if all management workflows including pricing tiers and damage reporting are fully functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the real-time location tracking and map integration implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system integrates mapping services (Google Maps/OpenStreetMap) with real-time GPS tracking, geofencing for parking zones, and proximity-based bicycle search. Must include live location updates, route planning, and parking zone validation. Deduct 5 points if GPS accuracy is below 10 meters, and 3 points if map rendering performance is poor (>2s load time). Full score requires seamless map interaction with clustering for dense areas.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the payment and billing system properly designed with transaction security?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the payment integration includes secure payment gateways, transaction logging, refund mechanisms, and multi-tier pricing (hourly/daily/monthly passes). Must implement proper encryption for payment data and transaction rollback capabilities. Deduct 5 points if payment security standards (PCI DSS) are not followed, 3 points if transaction history is incomplete. Requires proper handling of failed payments and automatic billing suspension.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the administrative dashboard and analytics system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes a complete admin panel with bicycle fleet monitoring, usage analytics, maintenance scheduling, and user management. Must provide real-time KPI dashboards, revenue reports, and predictive maintenance alerts. Deduct 5 points if data visualization is missing, 3 points if export functionality is absent. Give 10 points if advanced analytics like demand forecasting and optimal bike distribution algorithms are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network timeouts, GPS signal loss, payment failures, concurrent rentals of the same bike, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include proper error boundaries, graceful degradation, and data consistency checks, giving 10 points. If 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 user experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered bike maintenance prediction 2. Gamification with riding challenges and rewards 3. Carbon footprint tracking 4. Social features like group rides 5. AR for bike finding). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points). Features must be functional, not just UI mockups.",
+      "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 payment processing logics) 2. Function modules unrelated to bicycle management (e.g., built-in social media feed) 3. Performance-heavy effects that slow down core operations (e.g., complex 3D bike models). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core bike rental functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular architecture (separation of API/business logic/UI layers), database design normalization, API documentation, and deployment scripts. Deduct 5 points if database relationships are poorly designed or no indexing strategy exists; deduct 5 points if API endpoints lack proper validation and documentation; deduct 5 points if no environment configuration management. Full score requires clean architecture patterns and automated testing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme with proper contrast ratios (WCAG AA compliant) 2) Intuitive navigation with clear information hierarchy 3) Mobile-responsive design with touch-friendly controls (minimum 44px touch targets) 4) Professional typography with readable font sizes. Deduct 3 points for each accessibility violation, 5 points for poor mobile optimization, and 5 points for inconsistent UI patterns across pages.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the user interactions provide immediate feedback and smooth transitions: 1) Map interactions respond within 100ms 2) Form submissions show loading states 3) Real-time updates (bike availability) refresh smoothly without jarring changes 4) Touch gestures work intuitively on mobile. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive interaction, 3 points for janky animations or slow map panning, and 5 points if critical actions lack visual feedback or confirmation dialogs.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/shared-space-reservation-and-usage-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1114,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible. Project overview: Manage shared spaces within a building (such as meeting rooms, activity rooms, rest areas, etc.). Implement a system for reservation and usage monitoring of shared spaces.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the reservation system core functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the essential reservation features including calendar visualization, time slot selection, conflict detection, and confirmation flow. Score 0 if the reservation logic is missing, 5 if only basic booking without conflict checking exists, and 10 if it includes comprehensive features like recurring bookings, priority rules, and waiting lists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the space management functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system allows administrators to add, edit, and remove shared spaces with appropriate attributes (capacity, equipment, location, type). Check if spaces can be categorized, searched, and filtered. Deduct 5 points if space modification functionality is missing; deduct 3 points if there's no validation for space attributes. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the usage monitoring and analytics component developed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements space utilization tracking, usage statistics, and visualization of occupancy data. Check for features like usage reports, peak time identification, and underutilized space detection. Score 0 if monitoring is absent, 5 if basic logging exists without analytics, and 10 if comprehensive dashboards with actionable insights are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the user management and permission system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Verify the implementation of user roles (admin, regular users, space managers) with appropriate permission controls. Check if the system handles authentication, authorization, and maintains audit logs of user actions. Deduct 5 points if role-based access control is missing; deduct 3 points if there's no audit trail. 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 double-booking attempts, invalid time inputs, system overload during peak hours, 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 occupancy sensors integration 2. Automatic room suggestion based on meeting requirements 3. Mobile check-in/QR code verification). 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 booking confirmation flows) 2. Function modules unrelated to space management (e.g., built-in chat system when notifications would suffice) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 3D room renderings). 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 business logic/UI/data access 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"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/simple-accounting-program-qt.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 382,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable whenever possible. Help me write a simple accounting program using Qt.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core accounting functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements essential accounting features such as income/expense tracking, category management, balance calculation, and transaction recording. Score 0 if no accounting functions are present, 5 if only basic transactions are supported, and 10 if the system includes comprehensive accounting features (transaction history, categorization, searching).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Qt implementation correct and properly structured?",
+      "description": "Check if the code follows Qt best practices including proper signal-slot connections, appropriate use of Qt widgets, and correct implementation of the Qt event loop. Deduct 5 points if the code doesn't utilize Qt's object model correctly, and 3 points for failing to follow Qt naming conventions. Verify if the code uses appropriate Qt modules (QtWidgets, QtCore, etc.).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is data persistence implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the data storage mechanism. Check if the code properly saves and loads accounting data using appropriate methods (QSettings, SQLite database, file I/O, etc.). Deduct 5 points if there's no data persistence, 3 points if data is saved but without proper error handling. Full score requires proper initialization, data validation, and recovery mechanisms.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the UI design appropriate for an accounting application?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the UI includes essential accounting elements like transaction input forms, balance displays, report views, and filtering options. Check if the layout is logical with clear visual hierarchy. Deduct 5 points if critical financial information isn't clearly presented, and 3 points if the workflow is confusing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, calculation errors, data corruption, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Automated financial reporting 2. Budget forecasting 3. Data visualization for spending patterns). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to calculate the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to accounting (e.g., a built-in calculator when Qt already provides this) 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 business logic/view/data access 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 memory management is poor (Qt parent-child relationships not managed properly). 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 suitable for financial applications (professional and trustworthy) 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 feedback for financial operations. Deduct 5 points for transactions without confirmation feedback, 3 points for laggy interface when handling large datasets, and 5 points for hard-to-find critical financial controls. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}