@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/simple-warehouse-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1694,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Help me write a simple warehouse management system using a programming language.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core data model properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements essential data structures (Product, Inventory, Order, User entities) with appropriate attributes and relationships. Evaluate if proper normalization principles are applied to avoid data redundancy. Score 0 if no data model is implemented, 5 if basic entities exist but relationships are poorly defined, and 10 if a complete, normalized data model is implemented with proper validation rules.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are CRUD operations for inventory management fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify that the code includes Create, Read, Update, Delete operations for inventory items with proper input validation and error handling. Check if stock level tracking, batch operations, and inventory history are implemented. Deduct 3 points if any CRUD operation is missing, 2 points if validation is insufficient, and 3 points if inventory history tracking is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the warehouse location management system implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the code implements a location system (zones, aisles, shelves, bins) with proper item placement logic and optimization. Check if location search, space utilization calculations, and reordering suggestions are implemented. Deduct 4 points if the location system is oversimplified (just using IDs), 3 points if there's no optimization logic, and 2 points if visualization of warehouse layout is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are reporting and analytics features implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides essential reports (inventory status, stock movements, expiration alerts, reorder recommendations) with appropriate filtering and export capabilities. Check if any basic analytics (turnover rates, inventory value, forecasting) are implemented. Score 0 if no reporting exists, 5 if only basic listing without analytics is provided, and 10 if comprehensive reporting with visual representations is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, duplicate entries, concurrent access, system 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 experience (e.g., 1. Barcode/QR code integration 2. Mobile-friendly interface 3. Predictive inventory forecasting 4. Supplier integration). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to update inventory) 2. Function modules unrelated to warehouse management (e.g., a built-in email client) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations in a business application). 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 domain logic/persistence/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 data operations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/smart-expense-report-recognition-system-with-api-integration.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 581,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable. Implement a smart expense report recognition system that supports uploading receipts via photos, automatically recognizes key fields (amount/date/type), generates editable expense report forms, and integrates with the company's financial system API.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the receipt image upload and processing system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete image upload system with proper handling of various image formats (JPEG, PNG, PDF), compression for large files, and image preprocessing (rotation correction, brightness adjustment) before OCR processing. Score 0 if image upload isn't implemented, 5 if basic upload exists but lacks preprocessing, and 10 if all features including error handling for corrupted images are present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the OCR recognition system properly implemented for key expense fields?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements accurate OCR functionality that can identify and extract key fields (amount, date, merchant name, expense type, tax information) from receipts. Assess the implementation of field validation logic (date format checks, currency symbol handling, etc.). Score 0 if OCR is missing, 5 if basic recognition exists but accuracy is questionable, and 10 if robust field extraction with confidence scoring and fallback mechanisms are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the editable expense report form generation complete?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of dynamic form generation based on OCR results, with proper editable fields, validation for each field type, and preservation of original image data alongside the form. Score 0 if form generation is missing, 5 if basic non-customizable forms exist, and 10 if fully responsive forms with field-level validation, draft saving, and multi-receipt support are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the financial system API integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the code for comprehensive API integration including authentication handling, data formatting to match API requirements, request/response logging, error handling with retry mechanisms, and transaction verification. Check for proper handling of API rate limits and asynchronous submission. Score 0 if API integration is missing, 5 if basic submission exists without proper error handling, and 10 if complete bidirectional integration with sync status tracking is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as blurry images, network interruption, incomplete receipts, API failures) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered expense categorization 2. Automated currency conversion for international receipts 3. Receipt fraud detection algorithms 4. Budget tracking visualization). 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 image processing pipelines) 2. Function modules unrelated to expense reporting (e.g., excessive user profile features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations during OCR processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating OCR logic/UI/API integration layers), unit test coverage for critical components like field extraction, 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 for financial applications) 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 receipt preview layouts. 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) Feedback during OCR processing with accurate progress indicators 2) Smooth transitions between upload, recognition, and form editing stages 3) Clear visual guidance for correcting recognition errors. Deduct 5 points for lack of loading states during processing, 3 points for jarring transitions between workflow steps, and 5 points for unintuitive error correction interfaces. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/smart-locker-system-javascript.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1532,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Could you implement a Fengchao (Smart Locker) system using JavaScript?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core Fengchao (Smart Locker) system functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code properly implements the basic smart locker functionality including locker initialization, package placement, user authentication, and package retrieval. Score 0 if the core system logic is missing, 5 if only basic operations are implemented without proper state management, and 10 if the complete locker management system with proper state transitions is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and access control system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the authentication mechanisms (QR codes, PIN codes, mobile verification) and the security measures implemented. Check for input validation, secure token generation, and proper authentication flow. Deduct 5 points if authentication is simplistic or trivial, 3 points if validation logic is incomplete. Look for proper encryption of sensitive data and timeout mechanisms for authentication attempts. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the locker status management and reservation system designed effectively?",
+      "description": "Review how the system manages locker statuses (empty, occupied, reserved, maintenance) and the reservation logic. Check for race conditions handling, timeout mechanisms for unclaimed packages, and proper notification systems. Deduct 5 points if status transitions are incomplete, 3 points if reservation conflicts aren't handled. Give 10 points if the system includes comprehensive status management with proper error recovery.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is there a well-designed admin interface and monitoring system?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes admin functionality for system monitoring, manual interventions, usage statistics, and maintenance operations. Check for dashboard visualization capabilities and alert mechanisms for system issues. Deduct 5 points if admin features are minimal, 3 points if monitoring capabilities are limited. Award 10 points for comprehensive admin features with detailed reporting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, power outages, hardware malfunctions, invalid inputs, etc.) and provide graceful degradation or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include error logging, retry mechanisms, and data persistence. Give 10 points if these are well implemented, 5 points if robustness is average, and 0 points if no exception handling exists.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Predictive locker assignment based on package size 2. Integration with delivery tracking APIs 3. Smart notifications with estimated arrival times 4. Contactless biometric authentication). 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 that serve the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to smart lockers (e.g., unrelated social networking features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the core functionality). 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), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Inspect for design patterns appropriate for IoT/embedded systems. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if error handling is inconsistent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the user interface follows modern kiosk/touchscreen design principles: 1) High contrast for visibility in various lighting conditions 2) Large touch targets (at least 44x44px) 3) Clear instruction text (concise language, legible fonts). Deduct 3 points for each accessibility issue, 5 points for confusing navigation flows, and 5 points for information overload on screens. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interaction flow is intuitive and efficient: 1) Complete package deposit/retrieval in under 30 seconds 2) Clear progress indicators for multi-step processes 3) Immediate visual/audio feedback for user actions. Deduct 5 points for each unclear state transition, 3 points for slow response times (over 500ms), and 5 points for confusing error messages. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/smart-project-management-table-with-gantt-chart.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1676,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes. Create a smart project management table according to the requirements, which should include project name, department, task status, start time, deadline, completion time, automatic project progress calculation, as well as automatic generation of Gantt charts and other visualizations. It should also be able to link to project-related files in Excel, Word, and PDF formats. If possible, it would be best if the system could automatically input imported table data.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the project management table structure fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes all required fields (project name, department, task status, start time, deadline, completion time) and implements proper data validation and formatting. Check if the table structure allows for hierarchical task organization (tasks, subtasks) and proper data handling. Score 0 if core fields are missing, 5 if basic structure is implemented but lacks validation, and 10 if all fields are properly implemented with appropriate validation and formatting.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the automatic project progress calculation functionality implemented correctly?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code accurately calculates project progress based on task completion status and time parameters. Check if the calculation logic handles edge cases (e.g., overdue tasks, early completion) and properly aggregates subtask progress into parent task progress. Deduct 3 points if calculation doesn't consider task dependencies, 5 points if it doesn't handle subtask aggregation correctly, and 3 points if visual progress indicators (progress bars) are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the Gantt chart and other visualizations properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the visualizations are dynamically generated from the project data with correct time scale representation. Check if the Gantt chart includes critical path highlighting, dependency arrows, milestone markers, and proper color coding for status. Verify that visualizations are responsive and interactive (e.g., hover tooltips, zoom capability). Deduct 5 points if the chart lacks interactive features, 3 points if it doesn't handle task dependencies visually, and 5 points if the time scale is not properly formatted. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the file linking functionality implemented and working correctly?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements the ability to link to Excel, Word, and PDF files with proper file validation. Verify that file links are properly stored, displayed, and accessible. Test if file preview/thumbnail generation is implemented where appropriate. Deduct 3 points if any file type is not supported, 5 points if the linking mechanism doesn't include validation or security checks, and 3 points if there's no visual indication of linked files in the interface. 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, file access errors, concurrent edits, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "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 deadline recommendations 2. Automated status updates based on linked document changes 3. Team workload balancing visualization). 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 progress calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to project management (e.g., a built-in calculator unrelated to project metrics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down table rendering). 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 model/view/controller 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 automatic data import functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the code implements robust data import mechanisms for external table data (e.g., CSV, Excel, database connections). Assess if the import process includes data validation, mapping to internal schema, error handling, and provides clear feedback on import status. Deduct 5 points for missing validation during import, 3 points for poor error handling, and 5 points if the import UI lacks proper guidance or progress indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/software-development-documentation-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 659,
+  "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. Please write code to implement a software development documentation management system where developers can upload and manage API documentation, technical specifications, system design documents, etc. The system should support online Markdown editing, automatic generation of API interface documentation, and provide version management and change history tracking. Administrators should be able to assign project access permissions and manage team members.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Markdown editing system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine whether the code provides a complete Markdown editor with real-time preview, syntax highlighting, keyboard shortcuts, and image embedding. Check if the editor includes specialized technical documentation features like code block syntax highlighting, table formatting, and mathematical formula support. Score 0 if basic editor functions are missing, 5 if only basic Markdown is supported, and 10 if it includes advanced technical documentation features.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the API documentation auto-generation feature properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the system can parse code from common languages (Java, JavaScript, Python, etc.) to extract API definitions, parameters, and return types. Check whether it generates standardized documentation formats (OpenAPI/Swagger, JSDoc, etc.). Deduct 5 points if only one language is supported, 3 points if the generated documentation lacks examples, and 2 points if schema validation is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the version control system meet professional requirements?",
+      "description": "Assess if the version management includes document branching, conflict resolution, difference comparison visualization, and automatic merge suggestions. Check if it supports reverting to previous versions and maintains a complete audit trail. Deduct 5 points if branching is not supported, 3 points if visual diff is missing, and 3 points if there's no conflict resolution mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the permission and access control system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system implements role-based access control (RBAC) with granular permissions at project, document, and section levels. Check if it includes approval workflows, temporary access grants, and audit logging of permission changes. Deduct 5 points if only basic role assignments exist, 3 points if permission inheritance is not implemented, and 3 points if there's no audit trail for access changes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as concurrent editing conflicts, network interruption during document saving, invalid Markdown syntax, 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 documentation generation 2. Interactive API testing within documentation 3. Automatic code sample generation 4. Knowledge graph of document relationships). 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 implementations of similar functions (e.g., multiple document parsers doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to documentation management (e.g., a built-in chat system) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the documentation UI). 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 editor/storage/permission 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) Editor response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for saving/publishing operations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for sluggish editing experience with large documents, and 5 points for confusing navigation between document sections. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/sports-venue-management-platform.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 819,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable when possible.\n\n1. **Data Dashboard** (Blue Theme)\n   - User Data: Member growth trends/activity analysis\n   - Revenue Data: Income flow/profit sharing ratio settings\n   - Market Analysis: Monitoring of competitors' activities\n\n2. **Member Management** (Purple Theme)\n   - Complete User List: Supports batch operations (tag grouping/status filtering)\n   - Star Players: Set users as venue ambassadors (displayed in user interface)\n   - Blacklist: Management of rule-violating users\n\n3. **Activity Operations** (Orange Theme)\n   - Activity Publishing: Create matches/training/ticket sales events (automatically synced to user interface)\n   - Activity Calendar: Timeline view of published activities\n   - Feedback Collection: Management of user evaluations after events\n\n4. **Venue Management** (Green Theme)\n   - Real-time Monitoring: Occupancy rate heat map\n   - Equipment Configuration: Hawkeye system/lighting control integration\n   - Dynamic Codes: Generate time-limited venue reservation links\n\n5. **Team Management** (Red Theme)\n   - Coach Profiles: Qualification certification/course scheduling\n   - Authorization System: Set permission levels for coach accounts\n   - Training Schedule: Student registration and progress tracking\n\nRegarding the above categories, the five major modules are a bit too many, so they need to be consolidated.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the consolidated dashboard architecture properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code effectively consolidates the five modules into a coherent dashboard system with logical navigation. Check for hierarchical organization, responsive layout, and efficient state management across modules. Score 0 if modules remain completely separate, 5 if basic consolidation exists but with navigation issues, and 10 if modules are seamlessly integrated with consistent theming and cross-module data sharing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are the data visualization components professionally implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the implementation of charts and graphs for the Data Dashboard. Check for proper use of D3.js/Chart.js/ECharts libraries, responsive resizing, interactive tooltips, and appropriate visualization types for different data (line charts for trends, pie charts for ratios, etc.). Assess whether visualizations include proper axes, legends, and animations. Score 0 if visualizations are static images, 5 if basic charts exist without interactivity, and 10 if fully interactive, responsively designed visualizations with appropriate data loading states are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the management functionality for users/venues/activities comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine the CRUD operations across management modules. Check for filtering capabilities, batch operations, data validation, and proper state updates. Verify implementation of specialized features like tagging users, blacklisting, heat map visualization for venue occupancy, and activity timeline views. Deduct 3 points if basic CRUD is missing, 3 points if filtering/sorting is absent, and 4 points if specialized module features (like venue heat maps or activity calendars) are not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the theming system properly implemented with consistent color schemes?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the theming implementation for the specified color schemes (Blue/Purple/Orange/Green/Red). Check for CSS variables or theming system (like styled-components or Material UI theming), proper contrast ratios for accessibility, and consistent application across components. Assess whether theme switching is smoothly implemented when navigating between modules. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent theme application, 3 points for poor contrast/accessibility issues, and 4 points if theme integration across consolidated modules is broken. 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 states, network errors, user input validation, permission handling) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper loading states, error boundaries, form validation, and defensive coding practices. 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-driven analytics for predicting member trends 2. Natural language generation for automated activity reports 3. Interactive drag-and-drop schedule builder 4. Real-time collaboration features for team management). 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 features across modules (e.g., multiple user selection mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to the specified requirements (e.g., unnecessary social networking features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or 3D elements). 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/logic layers), state management approach, component reusability, and build process. Check for proper use of design patterns, code organization, and performance optimizations like memoization or virtualized lists for large datasets. 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 no performance optimizations are implemented for data-heavy views. 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 within each theme module with proper color contrast 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) 4) Consistent component styling across modules. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic dashboard 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 animations for module switching controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for important dashboard metrics and alerts. Check for skeleton screens during data loading, smooth transitions between views, and intuitive navigation between the consolidated modules. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between modules, 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/srm-supplier-admission-kanban-stage-tool.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 719,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for demonstration. Please create an interface for the supplier admission center in an SRM system, which includes a stage progression tool for each phase and a kanban board displaying the task lists for pending items at each stage.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the supplier admission center interface fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements all required components: a central dashboard view, stage progression tool showing different phases (e.g., initial contact, qualification, documentation, evaluation, approval), and a kanban board displaying task lists for each stage. Score 0 if main components are missing, 5 if only basic layout is present, and 10 if all components are properly implemented with clear visual hierarchy and information architecture.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the stage progression tool correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the stage progression tool visually represents the supplier onboarding pipeline with clear status indicators for each stage. It should include: 1) Visual indication of current stage, 2) Completed stages, 3) Upcoming stages, 4) Stage transitions with appropriate animations, and 5) Stage-specific metadata (time in stage, completion percentage). Deduct 2 points for each missing element. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the kanban board functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the kanban board correctly displays task cards organized by stages, with drag-and-drop functionality between columns, task filtering capabilities, and status updates reflected in real-time. Check that each task card contains essential information (task name, assignee, due date, priority). Deduct 3 points if drag-and-drop is not implemented, 2 points if filtering is missing, and 2 points if cards lack essential information. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the data structures and state management appropriate for an SRM system?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code uses appropriate data structures for supplier information, stage definitions, and task management. Check if state management handles complex relationships between suppliers, approval stages, and associated tasks. Evaluate whether the code handles data mutations properly with proper validation. Deduct 3 points for inappropriate data modeling, 4 points for inefficient state management, and 3 points for missing validation. 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 states, network errors, 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 collaboration indicators 2. Automated task progression based on conditions 3. Interactive supplier performance metrics 4. Intelligent stage duration predictions). 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 state management approaches coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to supplier management (e.g., built-in general chat system) 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 business logic/view/data layers), component reusability, code organization, 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) 4) Consistent use of enterprise UI components. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for supplier progression workflow 4) Intuitive drag-and-drop interactions for kanban tasks. 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/student-classroom-completion-status-record-webpage.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 873,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for demonstration. Help me create a webpage that records student classroom completion status.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core student record functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a student record system with features for adding, editing, and deleting student completion records. Check if it includes student identification, completion status tracking, and timestamp recording. Score 0 if the core functionality is missing, 5 if only basic recording is implemented, and 10 if comprehensive tracking with detailed status indicators is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is data persistence implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the application implements proper data storage (localStorage, IndexedDB, or server-side storage). Check if data survives page refreshes and browser restarts. Deduct 5 points if only temporary memory storage is used, 3 points if persistence exists but without error handling for storage failures. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the data visualization and reporting feature implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes visualization of completion data (charts, progress bars, or summary statistics). Check for filtering options, sorting capabilities, and exportable reports. Deduct 5 points if only raw data is displayed without visualization, 3 points if visualization exists but lacks interactivity. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the classroom management system comprehensively designed?",
+      "description": "Check if the implementation includes class/course management, multiple classroom support, student grouping, and batch operations. Deduct 5 points if only single-class tracking is implemented, 3 points if classroom management exists but without organizational hierarchy. Give 10 points if the system supports complete classroom ecosystem management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, database errors, concurrent edits, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should 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. Automatic attendance tracking 2. AI-powered insights on student performance 3. Real-time collaborative editing). 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 record the same information) 2. Function modules unrelated to classroom management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/UI/controller 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 scrolling, 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"
+}