@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/student-grade-recording-analysis-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1099,
+  "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. Well, there are so many tools that it's overwhelming. I haven't used any of these tools before and don't know how to use them. Which tool would you recommend that's easy to learn? Please tell me the detailed steps to help me develop a student grade recording and analysis system.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is there a comprehensive implementation of a student grade recording system?",
+      "description": "Is there a comprehensive implementation of a student grade recording system?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the grade analysis functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Is the grade analysis functionality properly implemented?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the user interface intuitive for educational staff with varying technical skills?",
+      "description": "Is the user interface intuitive for educational staff with varying technical skills?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are the step-by-step instructions clear and complete for a beginner?",
+      "description": "Are the step-by-step instructions clear and complete for a beginner?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Is the code robust?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/student-info-query-frontend-website.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1282,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. I need a student information query frontend website (in Python) that displays class information by searching fields like class and name, supporting fuzzy queries. The database fields include name and class.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic student information query function fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code properly implements the core query functionality with both name and class search fields. Check if the search logic handles both exact and fuzzy matching. Score 0 if search functionality is not implemented, 5 if only basic exact matching is implemented, and 10 if both fields support comprehensive fuzzy search with proper indexing and error handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Python web framework implementation appropriate and well-configured?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the choice and implementation of the Python web framework (Flask, Django, etc.). Check for proper routing, request handling, and response formatting. Deduct 3 points if the framework is poorly configured, 3 points if routing is messy, and 4 points if there are security vulnerabilities in the request handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the database interaction properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the database connection, query construction, and data retrieval logic. Check for proper parameterized queries to prevent SQL injection, efficient query design, and appropriate error handling. Deduct 3 points for non-parameterized queries, 3 points for inefficient queries that would scale poorly, and 4 points if connection pooling or resource management is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the search functionality optimized for usability and performance?",
+      "description": "Examine the search implementation for features like result pagination, search highlighting, auto-suggestions, and quick filtering. Check if the search is optimized for performance with proper indexing strategies. Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing, 3 points if search performance is not optimized, and 4 points if the interface lacks user-friendly search features. 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 search results, malformed queries, database connection issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Export search results to CSV/PDF 2. Data visualization components for class statistics 3. Responsive design that works well on mobile devices). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple search implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to student information query (e.g., unnecessary social media integrations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations that slow down search results). 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 database access/business logic/view 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 dependency management is poor or configuration is hardcoded. 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) Search results appear within 500ms 2) Loading indicators for longer operations 3) Clear visual focus guidance for search fields and results. Deduct 5 points for searches without loading indicators, 3 points for jarring page refreshes instead of smooth updates, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation between search and results. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/student-information-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1412,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable for demonstration. Student Information Management System, requirements: student personal information, grade statistics and query, exam paper archiving, error analysis.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the student information management module fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes CRUD operations for student data (add, retrieve, update, delete). Check for proper data validation (e.g., format validation for email/phone, required fields checking). Review if student profiles include essential fields (name, ID, contact info, enrollment date, etc.). Score 0 if core functionality is missing, 5 if basic operations are implemented with minimal validation, 10 if comprehensive student management with robust validation is present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the grade statistics and query system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system supports multiple query parameters (by student ID, name, course, score range, time period). Evaluate if statistical functions are implemented (average, median, standard deviation, percentile ranking, etc.). Review if the code includes data visualization components for grades (charts, graphs). Deduct 3 points if sorting/filtering options are limited, 5 points if statistical calculations are missing, and 3 points if visual representation is absent. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the exam paper archiving system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Review if the code implements secure storage for exam papers with proper versioning control. Check if the system supports various file formats (PDF, images, etc.) and includes metadata tagging (subject, exam date, difficulty level, topics covered). Evaluate search/retrieval functionality by various parameters. Deduct 5 points if versioning is missing, 3 points if file format support is limited, and 3 points if search capabilities are basic. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the error analysis functionality effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine if the code provides tools for tracking common mistakes, identifying knowledge gaps, and generating improvement recommendations. Check for pattern recognition in errors and trend analysis over time. Review if the system correlates errors with specific topics/concepts. Deduct 5 points if only basic error logging exists without analysis, 3 points if trend tracking is missing, and 3 points if personalized recommendations are absent. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common error scenarios (invalid input, database connection failures, file upload issues, concurrent access conflicts). Check for proper exception handling with meaningful error messages for users and detailed logging for administrators. Review if the system includes data backup/recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should handle these edge cases effectively, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if exceptions are unhandled, 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 learning recommendations based on error patterns 2. Automatic grade report generation with customizable templates 3. Mobile-responsive design with notification systems 4. Integration with external learning management 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. Duplicate implementation of similar functionality (e.g., multiple ways to calculate the same statistics) 2. Function modules unrelated to student/grade management (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Overly complex animations or visual effects that slow down performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (separation of data models, services, controllers, views), code reusability, and maintainability. Check for proper comments/documentation, consistent naming conventions, and code organization. Evaluate database design principles (normalization, indexing, constraints). Deduct 5 points if global state is overused, 5 points if code duplication rate exceeds 30%, and 5 points if proper security measures (authentication, authorization, input sanitization) are missing. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme appropriate for an educational tool (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper information hierarchy with clear visual separation between different functional areas 3) Appropriate typography for readability (headings vs. data display vs. input forms). Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for poor color combinations affecting readability, and 5 points for inconsistent styling across different screens. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system provides appropriate feedback for user actions: 1) Form validation with clear error messages 2) Loading indicators for data processing operations 3) Confirmation dialogs for critical actions (deletions, grade changes) 4) Intuitive navigation between different system modules. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for confusing navigation paths, and 5 points for unintuitive data entry workflows or hard-to-locate key functions. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/student-roll-call-software.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 870,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code when possible. How do I create a student roll call software?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core roll call functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements the essential features for student attendance tracking: student data management (add/edit/delete), attendance status recording (present/absent/late), and date/time tracking. Score 0 if the core functionality is missing, 5 if basic attendance recording is implemented, and 10 if features include batch operations and attendance statistics.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is there a proper student data management system?",
+      "description": "Check whether the software includes comprehensive student data management capabilities: importing/exporting student lists, search/filter functions, and data validation. Deduct 5 points if there's no data persistence mechanism, 3 points if student information is limited to basic fields only (missing photo/ID/contact details), and 3 points if there's no bulk import option from CSV/Excel. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Does the software have reporting and analytics capabilities?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes attendance statistics and reporting: individual student attendance rates, class-wide analytics, and exportable reports (PDF/Excel). Deduct 5 points if there are no visual charts for attendance trends, 3 points if detailed filtering options are missing, and 5 points if there's no export functionality. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are there multiple attendance verification methods?",
+      "description": "Check whether the software implements various attendance verification methods: manual roll call, barcode/QR code scanning, facial recognition, or automated verification. Deduct 3 points for each missing verification method beyond basic manual entry. Give 10 points if at least three methods are implemented with seamless switching between them.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as duplicate entries, network issues when saving data, invalid student IDs, etc.) and provide friendly error messages 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 notifications for absent students/parents 2. Integration with calendar for scheduling 3. Voice command support for faster roll calls). 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 add students that cause confusion) 2. Function modules unrelated to attendance tracking (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down the roll call process). 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 models/UI/business logic layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (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) Roll call operation completes within 1-2 seconds 2) Search/filter results update in real-time 3) Clear visual feedback for attendance status changes. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy interface when handling large class sizes, 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-scoring-math-groups.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 389,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Write an HTML code with the functionality of: scoring students in different math groups.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the student grouping and management system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements student group creation, editing, and deletion through HTML/JavaScript, and whether it includes dynamic group member management (add/remove students), group information display, and group switching functionality. Score 0 if core grouping logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic group display is implemented, and 10 if complete group management with validation is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the scoring system comprehensively implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the scoring functionality includes multiple input methods (individual scoring, batch scoring, import from file), score validation (range checking, format validation), real-time score updates, and score history tracking. Deduct 5 points if input validation is missing, and 3 points if score modification/deletion functionality is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the data persistence and storage mechanism designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system uses appropriate client-side storage (localStorage/sessionStorage/IndexedDB) to persist student data, group configurations, and scoring records. Check whether data import/export functionality is provided (JSON/CSV format support). Deduct 5 points if data is lost on page refresh. Check whether backup and recovery mechanisms are implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are statistical analysis and reporting features constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes comprehensive statistical analysis such as group performance comparison, individual student progress tracking, average/median/percentile calculations, and visual charts or graphs. Deduct 5 points if no statistical calculations are implemented, and 3 points if results are not displayed in an organized manner. Give 10 points if comprehensive analytics with visual representation are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, empty data sets, duplicate student names, malformed import files, 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. Automatic grade calculation with customizable weights 2. Progress tracking with timeline visualization 3. Collaborative scoring with multiple teacher accounts 4. Mobile-responsive design with touch interactions). 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 scoring input methods that serve the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to student scoring (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Excessive animations that affect usability (e.g., overly complex transitions for simple operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data management/UI rendering/calculation logic), code organization and structure, and consistent coding patterns. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper separation of concerns is not implemented; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if inconsistent naming conventions or poor code documentation. 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 educational software design principles: 1) Clean and professional color scheme suitable for educational context (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear visual hierarchy (element spacing follows consistent grid system) 3) Readable typography (body font size ≥ 14px, sufficient contrast ratios). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for unprofessional color combinations, and 5 points for poor information architecture. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the user interactions conform to educational software usability standards: 1) Form input feedback and validation in real-time 2) Smooth transitions between different views/groups (300-500ms duration) 3) Clear visual indicators for active states and user actions 4) Intuitive navigation and workflow. Deduct 5 points for each operation without proper feedback, 3 points for confusing user flow, and 5 points for hard-to-discover essential functions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/subway-arrival-time-display-board.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 961,
+  "question": "You are a coding 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. Design a program for a subway arrival time display board.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core subway arrival time display functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements real-time display of train arrival times, including station names, train destinations, and countdown timers. Score 0 if the core display functionality is missing, 5 if only static data is shown, and 10 if dynamic updates with simulated or real data feeds are implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include multi-line subway information handling?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the code's ability to handle and display information for multiple subway lines simultaneously, with proper visual differentiation (color coding, icons, etc.). Deduct 5 points if only a single line is supported, 3 points if multiple lines are supported but poorly differentiated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is there a data update and synchronization mechanism?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes mechanisms for fetching and updating train arrival data (API calls, WebSocket connections, or simulated data generation). Score 0 if no update mechanism exists, 5 if basic periodic updates are implemented, and 10 if there's a robust real-time synchronization system with error handling for connectivity issues.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include user-focused features?",
+      "description": "Assess whether user-friendly features are implemented, such as station selection, line filtering, platform identification, or accessibility options. Deduct 5 points if no user interaction is possible, 3 points if minimal options are available. Give 10 points for comprehensive user features that enhance the practical usability of the display board.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as data feed interruptions, malformed data, missing trains, etc.) and provide fallback displays 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. Transit alerts/notifications 2. Multilingual support 3. Interactive map 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 display the same information) 2. Function modules unrelated to subway displays (e.g., a built-in weather forecaster) 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 data fetching/processing/display layers), code reusability, and maintenance considerations. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for deployment or configuration options. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional transit display standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows transit information display best practices: 1) High contrast for readability at distance 2) Clear visual hierarchy prioritizing essential information 3) Appropriate use of color coding for line identification. Deduct 3 points for each readability issue, 5 points for confusing information architecture, and 5 points for poor contrast that would affect visibility in public spaces. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the display responsive to different viewing contexts?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the display adapts appropriately to different viewing scenarios: 1) Different screen sizes and orientations 2) Visibility considerations for public displays (large text, high contrast) 3) Performance optimization for continuous operation. Deduct 5 points for fixed-size designs that don't scale, 3 points for display elements that would be illegible at typical viewing distances, and 5 points for implementations that would degrade with continuous operation. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1210,
+  "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 demonstrable. Please write a complete smart locker system for a supermarket and teach me how to use it.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the smart locker hardware simulation system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately simulates locker hardware through HTML/JavaScript, including locker grid layout, electronic lock status indicators, RFID/QR code scanning simulation, and payment terminal integration. Score 0 if core hardware simulation is missing, 5 if only basic locker display is implemented, and 10 if complete hardware interaction simulation including sensors, displays, and payment systems is fully included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and rental process implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system includes multiple authentication methods (QR code, RFID card, mobile app), rental flow management, and real-time locker availability updates. The system should handle user registration, payment processing, and locker assignment logic. Deduct 5 points if payment integration is missing, and 3 points if user session management is not handled properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the locker management and monitoring system designed with admin functionality?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the admin panel includes real-time locker status monitoring, maintenance alerts, usage analytics, and remote control capabilities. The system should provide occupancy tracking, fault detection, and automated cleaning schedules. Deduct 5 points if real-time monitoring is not implemented, and 3 points if maintenance workflow is missing. Check whether emergency override and bulk operations are available. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the complete rental lifecycle and data persistence constructed?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete rental lifecycle management, including booking, access, extension, and return processes. Evaluate data persistence for user history, payment records, and system logs. Deduct 5 points if database integration is not implemented, and 3 points if rental history tracking is missing. Give 10 points if complete data management with backup and recovery mechanisms are fully implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as payment failures, hardware malfunctions, network interruptions, invalid access attempts, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should include retry mechanisms, fallback procedures, and comprehensive error logging, 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 user experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered optimal locker recommendation 2. Mobile app integration with push notifications 3. Social sharing of locker locations 4. Predictive maintenance alerts 5. Multi-language support). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple payment processing logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to locker management (e.g., built-in games or social media feeds) 3. Overly complex animations that affect performance (e.g., excessive 3D effects on locker doors). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core locker 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 authentication/payment/hardware control layers), database schema design, API structure, and error handling patterns. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper MVC/MVP patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no input validation or security measures are implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional kiosk standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI design follows kiosk usability principles: 1) High contrast colors suitable for various lighting conditions 2) Large touch targets (minimum 44px) with adequate spacing 3) Clear visual hierarchy with prominent call-to-action buttons 4) Accessibility features for disabled users. Deduct 3 points for each hard-to-read text element, 5 points for poor color contrast ratios, and 5 points for cramped button layouts unsuitable for touch interaction. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the user workflow intuitive and efficient?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the user journey is optimized for quick transactions: 1) Rental process completable within 60 seconds 2) Clear progress indicators and next-step guidance 3) Minimal cognitive load with simple instructions 4) Effective error recovery paths. Deduct 5 points for each confusing workflow step, 3 points for missing progress feedback, and 5 points for unclear error messages that don't guide users to resolution. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/survey-analysis-tool-with-advanced-features.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 611,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Implement a survey analysis tool that supports creation of various question types, setting up skip logic, and generating statistical charts (such as heatmaps for matrix questions) after collecting results. The implementation should include CSV export of response data and progress tracking for form completion.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the survey creation system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code provides a comprehensive interface for creating various question types (single choice, multiple choice, matrix, open-ended, rating scales). Check if the question configuration allows for required/optional settings, help text, and input validation. Award 3 points for each major question type fully implemented, 0 if core question types are missing, and 10 if all standard survey question types plus advanced options are present.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the skip logic functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the complexity of conditional logic the system supports. Check for: 1) Basic conditional display based on previous answers, 2) Multiple condition combinations (AND/OR logic), 3) Skip patterns that can span multiple questions, 4) Proper validation handling with skip logic. Deduct 3 points if only basic conditions are supported, 5 points if complex conditions aren't handled, and 10 points if skip logic is missing entirely. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the statistical visualization components properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the statistical charts implementation, especially focusing on heatmaps for matrix questions. Check if visualizations: 1) Accurately represent collected data, 2) Include proper scales and legends, 3) Are responsive across devices, 4) Provide interactive features (hovering, filtering, etc.). Award 2 points for each chart type properly implemented with 10 points maximum. Deduct 5 points if heatmap visualization for matrix questions is missing or poorly implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data export and progress tracking functionality working correctly?",
+      "description": "Verify that the CSV export functionality correctly formats all question types and responses, includes metadata (timestamps, user IDs), and handles special characters. Check if the progress tracking system accurately reflects completion percentage, saves partial progress, and provides visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if CSV export is missing essential data or has formatting issues, and 5 points if progress tracking is inaccurate or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid inputs, partial form submissions, browser refresh/navigation, data parsing errors) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Test edge cases like extremely long responses or special characters in answers. Deduct 3 points for each major vulnerability found. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time collaborative editing of surveys, 2. AI-assisted question suggestions, 3. Advanced sentiment analysis for open responses, 4. Response validation with machine learning). 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 data processing pipelines (e.g., multiple parsing mechanisms for the same data type) 2. Function modules unrelated to survey analysis (e.g., unnecessary social media integrations) 3. Heavy visual effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in data visualizations). 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 survey creation/data collection/analysis layers), unit test coverage for critical functions like skip logic and data aggregation, and build process automation. Check for proper data validation before processing. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high; deduct 5 points if there are no data validation safeguards. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the survey tool follows modern design principles: 1) Clean form layouts with proper grouping 2) Consistent visual hierarchy for questions and controls 3) Professional typography with proper line spacing (≥1.5) and contrast ratios (≥4.5:1) for accessibility. Check how charts are styled and if they follow data visualization best practices. Deduct 3 points for cluttered layouts, 5 points for poor information hierarchy, and 5 points for inaccessible design choices. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the survey tool provides appropriate interactions: 1) Instant validation feedback for user inputs 2) Smooth transitions between question sections 3) Responsive chart interaction with tooltips and hover states. Test on different devices and screen sizes. Deduct 5 points if form submission lacks clear feedback, 3 points for janky transitions between questions, and 5 points if visualizations don't resize properly on different screens. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}