@getollie/cli 0.0.1

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/vue3-ts-pinia-nested-routing-backend-menu.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1659,
+  "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 when possible. Vue3 TS Pinia nested routing backend-returned menu",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 setup with TypeScript correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess if the Vue 3 application is properly initialized with TypeScript support. Check for proper tsconfig.json configuration, correct component typing (defineComponent, defineProps, defineEmits with proper types), and appropriate type declarations. Score 0 if TypeScript is not properly integrated, 5 if basic TypeScript is used but with any/unknown types, and 10 if strict type checking is enabled with comprehensive custom types and interfaces.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is Pinia state management effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the Pinia store implementation for menu state management. Check for proper store definition with typed state, getters, and actions. Verify if the store correctly handles menu data persistence, loading states, and error handling. Deduct 5 points if the store doesn't use TypeScript interfaces, 3 points if actions don't handle async operations properly, and 2 points if getters lack memoization where appropriate. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the nested routing system correctly implemented?",
+      "description": "Examine the Vue Router configuration for handling nested routes dynamically generated from backend menu data. Check for proper route transformation logic, lazy-loading implementation, route guards for authentication, and correct handling of route parameters. Deduct 5 points if the dynamic route generation doesn't handle nested children properly, 3 points if route meta information is missing, and 2 points if navigation guards aren't implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the backend menu integration properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review the API integration for fetching menu data from the backend. Check for proper HTTP client setup (Axios/Fetch), typed response handling, error handling with retry mechanisms, data transformation to match front-end requirements, and caching strategies. Deduct 3 points for missing error handling, 3 points for improper response typing, and 4 points for lacking interceptors or request/response transformation. 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 backend API failures, malformed menu data, permission changes during runtime, 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. Menu item drag-and-drop reordering 2. Progressive loading for large menu structures 3. Smart breadcrumb navigation with history 4. Contextual menu adaptation based on user behavior). 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 menu state tracking mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to menu and routing (e.g., built-in analytics that should be separated) 3. Over-engineered solutions that impact performance (e.g., excessive recursive menu processing). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating API/store/components/types), unit test coverage for critical menu transformation logic, and build process optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or composition API isn't used effectively; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no code splitting for routes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the menu UI follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching for active/hover/default states 2) Proper menu item spacing and hierarchy visualization 3) Consistent typography system for menu items with proper truncation. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent menu item styling, 5 points for poor visual hierarchy indication, and 5 points for menu components that don't adapt to different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the menu interactions conform to user expectations: 1) Menu expansion/collapse animations under 300ms 2) Smooth route transitions with proper loading indicators 3) Visual feedback for menu interaction states. Deduct 5 points for menu items without hover/active states, 3 points for jarring page transitions between routes, and 5 points for menu interactions that cause layout shifts. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/vue3-typescript-bpmn-implementation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1170,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that any code you generate is executable. Vue3 setup with TypeScript, implementing BPMN 2.0",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the BPMN 2.0 core modeling functionality implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the Vue3 + TypeScript implementation correctly handles the core BPMN 2.0 elements (tasks, gateways, events, sequence flows, etc.) and their properties. Check if the elements maintain proper BPMN 2.0 compliance and semantics according to the OMG specification. Score 0 if basic elements are missing, 5 if implementation is incomplete, 10 if full BPMN 2.0 element coverage is provided.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the BPMN XML import/export functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the code can correctly parse standard BPMN 2.0 XML files and generate valid BPMN XML that adheres to the specification. Test with sample files to check if all diagram elements and their attributes are preserved during import/export cycles. Deduct 5 points if XML namespaces are improperly handled, 3 points if non-standard extensions aren't properly managed. Full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Vue3 Composition API correctly utilized?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code properly leverages Vue3's Composition API with setup() function, reactive/ref utilities, lifecycle hooks, and proper TypeScript integration. Check for proper component organization, avoiding unnecessary component rendering, and appropriate use of provide/inject for deep component communication. Deduct 5 points for incorrect reactivity implementation, 3 points for improper TypeScript type definitions. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the implementation include proper BPMN interaction patterns?",
+      "description": "Review whether the implementation supports standard BPMN interaction patterns such as drag-and-drop creation of elements, context menus for property editing, connection handling between elements, and resizing/repositioning capabilities. Check if the diagram interaction follows BPMN modeling tool conventions. Deduct 5 points if interaction feels clunky or unintuitive, 3 points if standard keyboard shortcuts are missing. 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 malformed BPMN XML, invalid user inputs, overlapping elements, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should prevent diagram corruption and data loss. Give 10 points if exceptional cases are handled comprehensively, 5 points if basic error handling exists, 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 implementation includes innovative features beyond standard BPMN modeling (e.g., 1. Real-time collaborative editing 2. Advanced validation and simulation capabilities 3. Custom theme support with live preview). 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 functionality in different components 2. Feature bloat unrelated to BPMN modeling 3. Over-engineered solutions that could be simplified. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core BPMN functionality or significantly impacts performance.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review the TypeScript type definitions, interface consistency, component architecture, and build configuration. Check for proper separation of concerns between rendering, business logic, and data management. Deduct 5 points if 'any' type is overused; deduct 5 points if component composition is poor; deduct 5 points if the build process lacks optimization for production. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the BPMN editor UI follows modern design principles: 1) Consistent visual hierarchy and information architecture 2) Intuitive toolbar and sidebar organization 3) Clear visual distinction between different BPMN element types. Deduct 3 points for cluttered workspace, 5 points for poor element visualization, and 5 points for inconsistent styling between editor components. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the BPMN editor performs efficiently with large diagrams: 1) Element rendering/manipulation feels responsive even with 50+ nodes 2) Smooth zooming and panning without visual glitches 3) Proper loading states for async operations. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag when editing complex diagrams, 3 points for jerky animations during element interactions, and 5 points for poor mobile/touch device support. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/vue3-vite-data-display-video-stats-backend.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1164,
+  "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. Help me write a Vue 3 + Vite data display video playback statistics backend.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the Vue 3 + Vite project structure correctly configured?",
+      "description": "Review whether the project structure follows Vue 3 + Vite best practices, including proper directory organization (components, views, assets, etc.), correct configuration of vite.config.js, and proper implementation of Vue 3 features (Composition API, <script setup>, etc.). Score 0 if the basic structure is incorrect, 5 if the structure is correct but missing optimization configurations, and 10 if the project structure is fully optimized with proper tree-shaking, code splitting, and asset handling.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the video playback functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of video playback features including play/pause controls, seeking functionality, volume control, and playback rate adjustment. Check if the HTML5 video API is properly utilized with Vue reactivity. Deduct 3 points if seeking functionality is missing, 3 points if playback controls are incomplete, and 5 points if the video player doesn't handle different formats or errors. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the data collection and statistics system comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Check whether the system collects comprehensive playback statistics including: watch time, play/pause events, drop-off points, completion rates, and interaction hotspots. Verify if the implementation includes throttling/debouncing for event handling and batched server updates to prevent overloading. Deduct 3 points if the collected data lacks granularity, 4 points if there's no optimization for data transmission, and 5 points if the statistics aren't properly structured for backend storage. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Does the backend integration include proper API design and state management?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the backend integration follows RESTful or GraphQL principles, includes proper error handling, authentication mechanisms, and uses efficient state management (Pinia/Vuex). Check whether the API communication includes request/response interceptors, request cancellation for abandoned queries, and retry mechanisms. Deduct 5 points for missing authentication, 3 points for poor error handling, and 3 points for inefficient state management. 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 video loading failures, network interruptions, API 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-based content recommendations 2. Interactive heatmaps for viewer engagement 3. Multi-angle viewing options 4. Automated chapter detection). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple state management solutions coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to video statistics (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact video playback). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components/business logic/API services), test coverage (unit tests with Vitest/Jest), and build process automation (CI/CD integration). Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/vuetify-windows-diary-software-mood-thoughts.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1427,
+  "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. I want to use Vuetify components to implement a diary software for Windows. It should be able to record daily moods, thoughts, etc.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the core diary functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements essential diary features: entry creation, editing, deletion, and viewing. Check if date-based organization is implemented, and if entries can store mood and thought data separately. Score 0 if basic CRUD operations are missing, 5 if basic operations exist but lack organization features, and 10 if all core diary functions are completely implemented with proper data validation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the Vuetify implementation correctly utilized?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly incorporates Vuetify components (v-card, v-text-field, v-date-picker, etc.) following Vue best practices. Check if the component hierarchy makes sense and if Vuetify's grid system is used for responsive layouts. Deduct 3 points if Vuetify's theming is not utilized, 5 points if components are used incorrectly or inconsistently, and 5 points if the responsive design is broken. Give full score if Vuetify is leveraged comprehensively and correctly.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the Windows-specific functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes Windows-specific features like local file system integration, desktop notifications, start-up configuration, and Windows UI/UX patterns. Verify if Electron or similar technology is used for Windows desktop integration. Deduct 5 points if there's no way to save data locally, 5 points if Windows-native features are absent, and 3 points if the app doesn't follow Windows design guidelines. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the mood tracking and visualization feature effectively implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code includes mood tracking functionality with appropriate UI elements (e.g., emoji selectors, mood sliders) and visualization components (charts/graphs) to display mood trends over time. Check if mood data is properly stored and can be filtered/searched. Deduct 5 points if visualization is missing, 3 points if mood tracking is too simplistic, and 3 points if historical mood data analysis is not available. 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 data corruption, offline usage, unexpected input, 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 mood analysis 2. Automated tagging system 3. Customizable templates for different entry types 4. Media attachment support for photos/audio). 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 save entries) 2. Function modules unrelated to diary keeping (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the application). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/UI/service layers), state management implementation, and build process configuration. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or Vue composition API/Options API is used inconsistently; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no build configuration for Windows packaging (using electron-builder or similar). The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (following Vuetify's material design palette) 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 for diary entry and navigation. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast navigation, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/warehouse-management-page-with-navigation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 836,
+  "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. Create a warehouse management page with a LOGO in the upper left corner, a menu bar on the left including common warehouse functions such as outbound and inbound operations, search functionality in the upper right corner along with email and the logged-in user's name, and a content area in the lower right.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the basic warehouse management layout properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the code correctly implements the required layout structure with LOGO in upper left, left sidebar menu, upper right utilities (search, email, username), and main content area. Score 0 if layout is completely incorrect, 5 if partially implemented but with significant positioning issues, and 10 if all elements are properly positioned according to requirements.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Are all required UI components included and functional?",
+      "description": "Check whether all specified components exist and function correctly: LOGO, left menu with warehouse functions (inbound/outbound operations), search bar, email notification, username display. Deduct 2 points for each missing component. For non-functional components (e.g., clickable menu that doesn't respond), deduct 1 point each.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is the warehouse menu functionality comprehensive?",
+      "description": "Assess the completeness of the warehouse management functions in the left menu. Expected functions should include: inventory management, inbound operations, outbound operations, returns processing, inventory counts, and reporting. Award 10 points for a comprehensive set of logically organized functions, 5 points for basic functions only, 0 points if critical warehouse operations are missing.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the navigation and interaction flow logical and intuitive?",
+      "description": "Review if the navigation structure makes sense for warehouse management workflows (e.g., related functions grouped together, proper hierarchy). Check if state changes are preserved when navigating between sections. Award 10 points for an intuitive flow that follows warehouse management best practices, 5 points for basic but workable navigation, 0 points for confusing or illogical navigation.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "title": "Is the code robust?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty search results, menu item loading failures, user authentication issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
+      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time inventory alerts 2. Dashboard with key metrics visualization 3. Dark/light mode toggle for warehouse environments). 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 bars with identical functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to warehouse management (e.g., social media feeds) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations that slow down critical warehouse operations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI components/business logic/data management), component reusability, and build process organization. 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 or lacks proper dependency management. 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 enterprise application design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for extended use (no eye strain) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear visual hierarchy 3) Professional font system with adequate size for warehouse environment use (possibly on different devices). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for warehouse management tasks. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast navigation, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 589,
+  "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. Design a warehouse management system with the following features: 1. Display inventory list after login; 2. Administrators can add or reduce product inventory and set minimum inventory thresholds; 3. Front-end warning when inventory exceeds thresholds; 4. Users can filter or search products by category; 5. Export current inventory as an Excel file.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the login and authentication system fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code includes a complete login system with proper authentication, session management, and user role differentiation (admin vs regular users). Check for secure password handling, CSRF protection, and proper logout functionality. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic authentication exists but lacks security features, and 10 if a complete secure system is implemented with role-based access control.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the inventory display functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the inventory list displays all necessary product information (ID, name, quantity, category, price, threshold values) in a clean table or grid format. Check for proper pagination if the inventory is large, sorting capabilities, and responsive design that works on different screen sizes. Deduct 3 points if any critical product information is missing, 3 points if the display is not responsive, and 2 points if sorting/pagination is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the inventory management functions for administrators properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Check if administrators can add new products, update existing inventory levels, and set minimum inventory thresholds. Verify that the code includes input validation, prevents negative inventory values, and provides confirmation dialogs for critical operations. Deduct 5 points if threshold management is missing, 3 points if inventory adjustment lacks validation, and 3 points if there's no confirmation for destructive operations. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the threshold warning system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the code implements visual alerts (color coding, icons, notifications) when inventory falls below the defined thresholds. Check if the warning system works in real-time and is visually distinct. Verify if there's a dashboard or summary view highlighting critical inventory items. Deduct 5 points if warnings are not visually prominent, 3 points if they're not real-time, and 5 points if the warning system is entirely 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 inputs, concurrent user operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for proper exception handling, input validation, and graceful degradation. 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. Inventory trend analysis/visualization 2. Barcode/QR code scanning integration 3. Smart inventory recommendations based on usage patterns). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
+      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to edit inventory) 2. Function modules unrelated to warehouse management (e.g., a built-in game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
+      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/service/UI layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Check for proper code comments and documentation. 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 search/filter and export functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the search and filter functions are intuitive and effective: 1) Search responds in under 300ms 2) Filter options are clearly categorized 3) Export function produces a properly formatted Excel file with all relevant inventory data. Deduct 5 points if search functionality is slow or buggy, 3 points if filtering is limited or confusing, and 5 points if the Excel export is missing or incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "medium"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/wastewater-lab-management-system.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1302,
+  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the generated code executable for demonstration. Create a Laboratory Information Management System suitable for wastewater treatment plant laboratories using Vue, Express, and MySQL. The system should include user login with role-based permissions, water quality testing, personnel management, equipment management, and reagent management.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the user authentication and role-based access control system properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements JWT/session-based authentication with proper encryption, role-based permission control (admin, lab technician, manager roles), and secure login flows including password hashing and token expiration. Check for password policy enforcement. Score 0 if authentication is missing, 5 if basic authentication exists but lacks proper role-based controls, and 10 if a complete, secure authentication system with fine-grained permissions is implemented.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the water quality testing module comprehensive for wastewater treatment needs?",
+      "description": "Verify if the system handles essential wastewater parameters (pH, BOD, COD, TSS, nitrogen, phosphorus, metals), supports customizable test methods with validation rules, maintains testing workflow (sampling → testing → verification → reporting), and includes statistical analysis capabilities. Deduct 3 points if regulatory compliance tracking is missing, 3 points if quality control standards aren't implemented, and 2 points if trend analysis visualization is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Are the laboratory resource management modules complete and integrated?",
+      "description": "Assess whether the system properly implements personnel management (certification tracking, scheduling), equipment management (calibration records, maintenance schedules), and reagent management (inventory, expiration tracking, reorder points). Check for traceability between resources and tests. Deduct 3 points for each major module not implemented or poorly integrated. Give 10 points only if all three systems work cohesively with automated notifications and cross-module dependencies.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the data handling architecture appropriate for laboratory workflows?",
+      "description": "Evaluate if the system implements proper data validation (with field-specific rules for lab parameters), audit trails for regulatory compliance, data versioning for test results, and comprehensive reporting capabilities. Verify database schema design with appropriate relationships and constraints. Deduct 5 points if data integrity controls are weak, 3 points if the reporting system is limited, and 5 points if there's no audit logging. 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 incorrect parameter inputs, database connection failures, concurrent user operations, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for input sanitization to prevent SQL injection and XSS attacks. 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 laboratory experience (e.g., 1. Automated regulatory compliance reporting 2. Machine learning for anomaly detection in test results 3. Mobile-responsive interface for field sampling 4. QR code integration for equipment/reagent tracking). 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 user management interfaces) 2. Function modules unrelated to laboratory management (e.g., a built-in game for staff) 3. Overly complex features that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary real-time updates for static data). 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 Vue component architecture, Express API organization, database schema design, and test coverage. Check for proper separation of concerns between frontend and backend. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 3 points if API endpoints aren't RESTful or lack consistent error handling; deduct 5 points if there's significant code duplication; deduct 2 points if the build/deployment process isn't automated. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional laboratory standards?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows laboratory-appropriate principles: 1) Clean, clinical color scheme with clear hierarchy 2) Consistent data visualization for measurements 3) Intuitive navigation between related laboratory functions 4) Appropriate data density for scientific information. Deduct 3 points for visual elements that hinder data clarity, 5 points for interfaces that don't prioritize critical laboratory information, and 5 points for designs that would be difficult to use in a lab environment. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "title": "Is the system optimized for laboratory workflow efficiency?",
+      "description": "Judge whether the interface supports efficient laboratory operations: 1) Minimal clicks for routine tasks (≤3 clicks) 2) Batch operations for common procedures 3) Quick access to related information (reagents needed for tests, equipment calibration status) 4) Keyboard shortcuts for data entry. Deduct 3 points for each workflow bottleneck identified, 5 points if navigation between related functions is cumbersome, and 5 points if the system would slow down rather than enhance laboratory productivity. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "hard"
+}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/web-app-article-list-crud-functionality.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "index": 1655,
+  "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. Create a web application that displays a list of articles and implements CRUD (create, read, update, delete) functionality.",
+  "checklist": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "title": "Is the CRUD functionality fully implemented?",
+      "description": "Verify if the application correctly implements all CRUD operations (Create, Read, Update, Delete) for articles. Check whether forms for adding and editing articles are properly validated. Score 0 if core CRUD operations are missing, 5 if basic operations exist but with limited validation, and 10 if all operations are implemented with proper validation (required fields, data types, etc.).",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "title": "Is the article listing functionality properly implemented?",
+      "description": "Review whether the code implements proper listing of articles with features like pagination, sorting, or filtering. Check if the list displays relevant article information (title, date, excerpt, etc.). Deduct 3 points if pagination is missing for large datasets, 2 points if sorting/filtering options are not available, and 3 points if the display of article information is incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "title": "Is data persistence implemented?",
+      "description": "Evaluate whether the application properly stores data (using localStorage, IndexedDB, backend API, etc.) and maintains state between sessions. Check if data loading states and error handling are implemented. Deduct 5 points if no persistence mechanism is implemented, 3 points if error states aren't handled, and 3 points if loading states aren't managed properly. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "title": "Is the UI/UX for article management intuitive?",
+      "description": "Assess if the interface provides clear visual cues for CRUD operations, confirmation dialogs for destructive actions (delete), and intuitive navigation between article views. Check for proper feedback after operations. Deduct 3 points for missing confirmation dialogs, 3 points for unclear action buttons, and 4 points for lack of operation feedback. 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 form validation errors, network issues, empty states, 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. Rich text editor for articles 2. Article tagging/categorization system 3. Search functionality with highlighting 4. Article reading time estimation). 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 delete an article) 2. Function modules unrelated to article management (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 API/state/UI components), code organization, reusable components, and proper state management. Deduct 5 points if global state is overused or components are tightly coupled; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if naming conventions are inconsistent. 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 operations, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
+      "maxScore": 10
+    }
+  ],
+  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
+  "difficulty": "easy"
+}