@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/trading-system-component-framework.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1160,
+  "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 whenever possible. Provide a complete trading system component framework.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core trading functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements essential trading operations (buy/sell orders, order types, order book management). Check if trade matching logic, price determination, and execution flow are correctly implemented. Score 0 if core trading logic is missing, 5 if basic order placement exists but lacks matching engine, and 10 if the system includes comprehensive order management with various order types (market, limit, stop, etc.).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the trading system architecture properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the overall system architecture, including separation of concerns, component interactions, and scalability considerations. Check if the design follows recognized patterns like event-driven architecture or microservices. Deduct 5 points if components are tightly coupled, 3 points if there's no clear separation between core trading logic and presentation layer, and 3 points if the design doesn't account for high throughput scenarios. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the risk management system implemented?",
+      "description": "Check for implementation of essential risk controls including position limits, exposure calculations, margin requirements, and circuit breakers. Deduct 3 points if there's no pre-trade risk validation, 3 points if margin calculation is missing, and 5 points if there are no circuit breakers or timeout mechanisms for extreme market conditions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are market data handling and order book visualization properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess the market data processing pipeline and order book visualization components. Check if the system can efficiently process market data updates, maintain an accurate order book, and present it visually. Deduct 5 points if real-time updates aren't supported, 3 points if depth visualization is missing or poorly implemented, and 3 points if there's no historical data view. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, invalid orders, market data interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error handling or recovery mechanisms. Check if edge cases like partial fills, order cancellations during matching, and race conditions are properly handled. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for average robustness, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the trading experience (e.g., 1. Real-time portfolio performance analytics 2. Market sentiment indicators integration 3. Automated trading strategy builder with backtesting). 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 order validation mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to trading (e.g., built-in social media features) 3. Fancy visualizations that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 3D charts). 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 trading logic/market data/UI layers), test coverage for critical components, 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 trading platform standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows modern trading platform principles: 1) Professional color scheme (dark mode with accent colors) 2) Clean, information-dense layout with proper spacing 3) Clear visual hierarchy for important trading data. Deduct 3 points for cluttered trading screens, 5 points for poor data visualization choices, and 5 points for non-responsive layouts that waste screen space. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the trading interaction experience optimized?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the trading interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Order entry speed ≤ 100ms 2) Real-time updates without user-initiated refreshes 3) Clear confirmations for critical actions. Deduct 5 points for slow order entry, 3 points for laggy market data updates, and 5 points for confusing trade confirmation workflows. Check if keyboard shortcuts for power users are implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/tutoring-center-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 832,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Help me write a system code for a tutoring center that includes an attendance system, a work progress tracking system, a system for organizing incorrect answers and notes, and a section for teacher comments and specialized feedback.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the attendance system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements a comprehensive attendance tracking system including check-in/check-out functionality, absence tracking, tardiness recording, and attendance reporting. Check if it has user authentication to prevent fraudulent check-ins. Score 0 if attendance tracking is missing, 5 if basic attendance is implemented without validation, and 10 if it includes all features with proper authentication and reporting capabilities.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the work progress tracking system properly designed?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the system tracks student progress effectively with features like milestone tracking, assignment completion status, time spent on tasks, and progress visualization. Check if it includes progress metrics and comparison against goals. Deduct 3 points if it lacks visual progress indicators, 4 points if historical data tracking is missing, and 5 points if it doesn't support custom progress goals. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the incorrect answers and notes organization system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check if the system properly categorizes and stores incorrect answers with associated notes, includes tagging or classification by topic/difficulty, and provides effective search/retrieval mechanisms. Verify if it supports various media types for explanations (text, images, audio). Deduct 5 points if categorization is missing, 3 points if search functionality is inadequate, and 5 points if it doesn't connect errors to learning resources. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the teacher feedback and comments system sufficiently detailed?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system allows teachers to provide structured feedback, includes templated and customized comment options, supports attachment of resources, and offers a mechanism for tracking feedback implementation. Check if students can respond to feedback creating a dialogue. Deduct 3 points if feedback templates are missing, 4 points if there's no way to track if students reviewed feedback, and 4 points if the system doesn't support multimedia feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (invalid inputs, duplicate entries, concurrent access, etc.) and provides appropriate error handling with user-friendly messages. Check for data validation, transaction handling for database operations, and defense against common security vulnerabilities. Deduct 3 points for each unhandled critical error scenario, 5 points if input validation is inconsistent or weak, and 5 points if there's no graceful error recovery. 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 unexpected valuable features such as: 1) AI-powered personalized learning path suggestions based on error patterns, 2) Gamification elements to improve student engagement, 3) Automated progress insights and recommendation engine, 4) Integration with external learning resources, 5) Mobile-friendly interfaces with notifications. Add 2 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) Multiple implementations of similar functionality (e.g., different attendance tracking methods that serve the same purpose), 2) Features unrelated to tutoring center management (e.g., complex social networking capabilities), 3) Overengineered components that add complexity without proportional value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core functionality.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review the architecture (MVC/MVVM patterns), code organization, naming conventions, and test coverage. Check for proper separation of concerns, dependency injection, and database abstraction. Evaluate documentation quality and maintainability. Deduct 3 points for poor naming conventions, 3 points for excessive coupling between components, 3 points for inadequate documentation, and 4 points if testing is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent color scheme with appropriate contrast ratios, 2) Intuitive navigation and information hierarchy, 3) Responsive design that works across devices, 4) Accessibility compliance. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent styling, 3 points for poor information architecture, 2 points for non-responsive elements, and 3 points for accessibility failures. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the system provides appropriate feedback for user actions, maintains state consistency during operations, and offers intuitive workflows. Check if form submissions show loading states, operations have confirmation dialogs when appropriate, and users receive clear notifications about system status changes. Deduct 3 points for delayed feedback (>300ms), 3 points for confusing navigation flows, 2 points for missing confirmation on critical actions, and 3 points for inadequate error state handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/ui-interface-design-code-generation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1185,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable whenever possible. I'll show you a UI interface design, and could you write the corresponding code for it?",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the UI implementation faithful to the design specification?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation matches the provided design with pixel-perfect accuracy. Check for proper colors, spacing, fonts, and overall visual fidelity. Score 0 if the implementation looks completely different from the design, 5 if there are several noticeable inconsistencies, and 10 if it's nearly identical to the design specification.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the HTML structure semantic and accessible?",
+      "description": "Examine the HTML structure for proper semantics (using appropriate tags like nav, header, section, etc.), ARIA attributes where necessary, and keyboard navigability. Check for proper heading hierarchy, alt text for images, and form label associations. Deduct 3 points for each major accessibility issue found (missing alt text, non-semantic divs for clickable elements, etc.). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the CSS implementation clean, maintainable and responsive?",
+      "description": "Check if the CSS uses a methodology (BEM, SMACSS, etc.), avoids !important, implements responsive breakpoints properly, and uses relative units where appropriate. Check for browser compatibility and if media queries are used effectively. Deduct 3 points for excessive CSS duplication, 3 points for non-responsive implementation, and 4 points for browser incompatibility issues. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the interactive functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify that all interactive elements work as expected: buttons trigger appropriate actions, forms validate input, dropdown menus open/close, modal dialogs function correctly, etc. Check for proper event handling and state management. Score 0 if interactive elements are purely decorative, 5 if basic functionality works but with issues, 10 if all interactions are fully functional.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty states, error handling, input validation, edge cases) 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. Subtle micro-interactions 2. Performance optimizations like lazy loading 3. Additional visual feedback for user actions). 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 2. Function modules unrelated to the UI design 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations or transitions). 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 component-based structure), code organization, variable/function naming, and code reusability. Deduct 5 points if global CSS/JS pollutes namespace, deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%), deduct 5 points if code is not properly organized into files/folders. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/urban-homestay-brand-management.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1786,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Try to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. I am now starting a business to create an urban homestay brand, with properties distributed across different neighborhoods, each with a different style. The investment amount is 300,000, with 3 staff members responsible for platform OTA operations, housekeeper customer service, and soft furnishing design, etc. Based on the above ideas and content, please help me generate a piece of HTML code. I don't understand how to write code, but need management that meets smart and intelligent urban homestay management!",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the urban homestay management system's core functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the HTML code implements essential management features including property listing management, reservation tracking, occupancy calendar, and financial reporting. Score 0 if none of the core functions are implemented, 5 if only basic listing display is present, and 10 if a complete management dashboard with all key metrics is included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the OTA (Online Travel Agency) integration functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes integration with OTA platforms (like Airbnb, Booking.com, etc.) through API connectors or embedded widgets. Verify if it allows synchronized calendar management across platforms and centralized booking management. Deduct 5 points if there's no real-time synchronization mechanism, and 3 points if listing information can't be updated across multiple platforms simultaneously. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the customer service and housekeeping management system implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes features for managing housekeeping schedules, cleaning status tracking, maintenance requests, and guest communication tools. Check if the system allows for task assignment to the 3 staff members mentioned. Deduct 5 points if there's no notification system for urgent issues, and 3 points if cleaning verification protocols are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the property style management and visualization implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes functionality to showcase different property styles across neighborhoods, including visual representation through image galleries, style categorization, and furnishing inventory management. Check if the system supports the soft furnishing design staff member's work with design templates or mockup tools. Deduct 5 points if there's no visual representation of properties, and 3 points if style categories can't be filtered or searched. 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 incomplete form submissions, network interruptions, data validation 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. AI-powered pricing optimization 2. Smart home integration for remote property management 3. Guest experience personalization tools). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple calendar views showing the same data) 2. Function modules unrelated to homestay management (e.g., a built-in game for guests) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations on critical management pages). 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/view/controller layers), component reusability, and responsive design implementation. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the interface doesn't adapt to different screen sizes. 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 that reflects the homestay brand identity 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 dashboard 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) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for critical management tasks. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy dashboard refreshes, 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/user-access-restriction-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1706,
+  "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 whenever possible. Set up user access restrictions, including IP range blacklists/whitelists, time range blacklists/whitelists, application name blacklists/whitelists, and hostname blacklists/whitelists.\n\nThe interface is divided into five sections:\nUser section: Displays the system's user list;\nTime range control: Lists time range controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete time range blacklists/whitelists;\nIP blacklist/whitelist control area: Lists IP blacklist/whitelist controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete IP blacklists/whitelists;\nApplication name blacklist/whitelist: Lists application name blacklist/whitelist controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete IP blacklists/whitelists;\nHostname blacklist/whitelist: Lists hostname blacklist/whitelist controls for a selected user, with options to add, modify, and delete IP blacklists/whitelists.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user section fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the user list display includes essential user information (username, status, last access time), proper pagination for large user counts, and search/filter functionality. Check if user selection triggers appropriate updates in all other sections. Score 0 if user listing is missing, 5 if basic display is implemented without filtering, and 10 if complete with search, sorting, and proper state management.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the time range control section properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review if the time range control allows adding, modifying, and deleting time range blacklists/whitelists for selected users. Check for proper time validation (no overlapping ranges), timezone handling, recurrence options (daily, weekly, etc.), and visual representation of time ranges. Deduct 3 points if validation is missing, 3 points if timezone support is absent, and 3 points if the UI doesn't clearly visualize time conflicts. Full score for complete implementation is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the IP blacklist/whitelist control fully functional?",
+      "description": "Assess if the IP control section properly implements adding, modifying, and deleting IP blacklists/whitelists. Check for valid IP format validation (IPv4 and IPv6), CIDR notation support for subnet specification, bulk IP import functionality, and conflict detection between blacklist and whitelist entries. Deduct 3 points for missing IP validation, 3 points if CIDR notation isn't supported, and 3 points if conflict detection is absent. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Are application name and hostname blacklist/whitelist sections properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if both application name and hostname control sections allow adding, modifying, and deleting entries with proper validation. Check for wildcard pattern support (e.g., *.domain.com), case-sensitivity options, proper escaping of special characters, and duplicate entry prevention. Deduct 3 points for each section if pattern validation is missing, 2 points if wildcard support is lacking, and 3 points if there's no conflict prevention between blacklists and whitelists. 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, network errors, concurrent modifications by multiple admins, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code should validate all inputs before processing, handle API failures gracefully, and implement proper session management. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validation only, and 0 points if exceptions are unhandled.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time conflict visualization between rules 2. Rule testing simulator to see which rules would apply to a specific access attempt 3. Rule statistics showing most frequently triggered rules 4. Bulk import/export of rules). 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 validation functions across different rule types 2. Function modules unrelated to access control (e.g., integrated chat systems) 3. Fancy visual 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 rule management logic/UI rendering/API layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper state management patterns and reusable components across rule types. 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). Check if the five distinct sections are clearly delineated yet visually cohesive. Deduct 3 points for each crowded section, 5 points for inconsistent styling across sections, and 5 points for chaotic rule presentation. 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 when switching between users or rule types. Evaluate if rule conflicts are highlighted in real-time and if rule changes propagate immediately across the interface. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for sluggish rule updates, and 5 points for confusing navigation between the five sections. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-login-window-program.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 713,
+  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable when possible. Write a user login window program.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user interface for the login window properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code creates a clean, functional login interface with appropriate input fields (username/email, password), login button, and possibly a registration link or forgot password option. Score 0 if no UI is implemented, 5 if basic fields are present but poorly organized, and 10 if the interface is complete with proper layout and responsive design.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is input validation properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes client-side validation for user inputs (e.g., email format validation, password complexity requirements, empty field checks). Deduct 3 points for missing validation on critical fields, 5 points for no validation at all. The input fields should provide visual feedback on validation errors. Full score requires comprehensive validation with clear error messages.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the authentication mechanism secure and properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the authentication process follows security best practices: password hashing, secure storage, HTTPS support for API calls, and protection against common attacks (XSS, CSRF). Deduct 5 points if passwords are stored/transmitted in plain text, 3 points if no session management is implemented, and 3 points if there's no CSRF protection. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the login state management properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the code implements proper login state management, including session/token handling, storage of authentication credentials, and proper logout functionality. Deduct 5 points if credentials are stored insecurely (e.g., in localStorage without encryption), 3 points if there's no session timeout handling, and 3 points if logout functionality is missing or incomplete.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, server timeouts, invalid credentials, 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. Social media login integration 2. Two-factor authentication 3. Biometric authentication options 4. Remember me functionality 5. Smart form completion). Add 2 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 validation systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to login (e.g., complex animations that distract) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy background animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/authentication layers), appropriate error handling, and maintainable code structure. 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 are no comments or documentation for complex logic. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Clear visual hierarchy for form elements. 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) Form submission feedback is immediate 3) Clear visual focus states for keyboard navigation 4) Smooth transitions between form states (e.g., error/success). Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points for keyboard inaccessibility. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-login-window-transition.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1062,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Write a user login window program where a successful login verification leads to a window transition.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user login form properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if the login form has necessary fields (username/email and password), proper labels, and input validation. The form should prevent submission with empty fields and validate input formats (e.g., email pattern). Score 0 if form is missing, 5 if basic form exists without validation, 10 if complete with client-side validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the authentication logic correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the authentication process is properly coded with credential verification (even if mocked). Check for secure password handling (e.g., hashing if applicable). The authentication should return clear success/failure responses. Deduct 5 points if credentials are hardcoded, 3 points if there's no error handling. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the window transition implemented and smooth?",
+      "description": "Verify that a successful login triggers a transition to a new window/screen. Assess if the transition uses proper animation (fade/slide) and follows UI/UX best practices. Score 0 if no transition exists, 5 if basic abrupt transition is implemented, 10 if the transition is smooth with appropriate visual feedback.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is session management properly handled?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code implements session handling after successful login (e.g., tokens, cookies, localStorage). Evaluate if the session persists appropriately and includes timeout/expiry mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if no session management exists, 3 points if session security measures are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network errors, invalid input, login failures) and provide friendly error messages. Code with strong robustness should handle these edge cases effectively, 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. Remember me functionality 2. Password strength meter 3. Multi-factor authentication 4. Login history display). 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 validation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to login (e.g., a built-in calculator) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/authentication logic), proper error handling, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or 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 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 transitions, and 5 points for hard-to-find login button. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/user-registration-login-profile-management.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 977,
+  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable when possible. Help me develop details for regular user registration, login, user profile/personal center functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user registration system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements complete registration logic including form validation (email format, password strength, username uniqueness), server-side verification, email confirmation mechanism, and duplicate account prevention. Score 0 if core registration flow is missing, 5 if only basic form submission is implemented, and 10 if all validation rules and security measures are fully included.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and login function properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the login system includes secure authentication (JWT/session management), password encryption (bcrypt/scrypt), remember me functionality, and account lockout protection after failed attempts. Two-way token validation between front-end and back-end is required. Deduct 5 points if password hashing is missing, and 3 points if session timeout is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the user profile management system designed with complete CRUD operations?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the profile system supports comprehensive user data management including avatar upload with image compression, personal information editing with real-time validation, privacy settings control, and data persistence. Check if profile picture preview and crop functionality is implemented. Deduct 5 points if file upload security is not addressed. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the personal center dashboard feature-complete?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes a comprehensive personal center with activity history, account settings, notification preferences, security settings (2FA, password change), and data export functionality. Deduct 5 points if user activity tracking is not implemented, and 3 points if account deletion/deactivation is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with proper navigation structure.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, network failures, database connection issues, file upload 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 user experience (e.g., 1. Social login integration (Google/Facebook/GitHub) 2. Profile completion progress indicator 3. Advanced security features like login location tracking 4. Personalized dashboard widgets). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple validation logics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to user management (e.g., built-in games or unrelated widgets) 3. Excessive animations that affect performance (e.g., heavy particle effects on every interaction). 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 authentication/validation/API layers), input sanitization, SQL injection prevention, and secure coding practices. Deduct 5 points if sensitive data is exposed in client-side code or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if security best practices are ignored. 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 form styling and proper visual hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic form 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) Form validation feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Page transition animations controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear loading states and progress indicators 4) Intuitive navigation flow between registration/login/profile pages. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation patterns. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}