@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-celestial-movement-sun-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 443,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Write a piece of frontend code that simulates the motion of the sun as a celestial body.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar motion simulation physically accurate?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code models the sun's position correctly based on astronomical principles (taking into account earth's rotation, seasonal variations, or orbital mechanics). Score 0 if basic motion is missing, 5 if simple circular motion is implemented, 10 if the simulation includes proper angular velocity and potentially seasonal variations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the visual representation of the sun properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the sun is rendered with appropriate visual effects (sun disk, corona, rays, glow) and whether the code adjusts lighting conditions based on the sun's position. Deduct 5 points if the sun lacks visual detail, 3 points if lighting effects are static. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there a day/night cycle simulation with corresponding environmental changes?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code simulates color changes in the sky, horizon effects, and potentially other elements (clouds, stars at night) based on sun position. Score 0 if no atmospheric changes occur, 5 if basic color shifts exist, and 10 if there's a complete day/night transition with appropriate lighting and environmental effects.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the code provide user interaction for controlling the simulation?",
-      "description": "Check if users can control time speed, pause/play the simulation, change viewing angles, or adjust simulation parameters. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control, and 5 points if there's no user interaction at all. 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 browser resizing, device rotation, performance throttling, etc.) and provide fallback 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. Weather effects interacting with sunlight 2. Realistic lens flare effects 3. Location-based simulation using geolocation). 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 rendering techniques 2. Function modules unrelated to solar motion (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Excessively complex effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary particle systems). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculations/rendering/user interface layers), reusability of components, and optimization techniques. 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 rendering optimization techniques are absent. 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 in the sky/environment rendering 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information displays 3) Professional font system if text elements are included. Deduct 3 points for each visually jarring element, 5 points for unrealistic color combinations in the sky rendering, and 5 points for poorly integrated UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation conforms to natural movement: 1) Consistent frame rate (target 60fps) 2) Smooth transitions between day/night states 3) Natural easing for sun movement rather than linear motion. Deduct 5 points for choppy animation, 3 points for unrealistic movement patterns, and 5 points for abrupt transitions between states. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-code-to-simulate-solar-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 444,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Write a frontend code to simulate the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic solar system simulation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the celestial bodies of our solar system (Sun, 8 planets, and optionally dwarf planets/moons) with their relative sizes and orbital distances. Check if planet positions are calculated using proper mathematical formulas (Kepler's laws or simplified circular orbits). Score 0 if fewer than 5 planets are implemented, 5 if all planets are present but with inaccurate scales/orbits, and 10 if an astronomically accurate model is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the planetary motion animation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the orbital mechanics implementation, including correct rotation speed ratios between planets, proper direction of rotation, and smooth animation rendering (using requestAnimationFrame or similar techniques). Check if the animation maintains a consistent frame rate (ideally 60fps). Deduct 3 points if planets move at arbitrary speeds, 4 points if animations stutter noticeably, and 3 points if orbital periods don't maintain proper relative timing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there a user interaction system for exploring the solar system?",
-      "description": "Check whether the simulation allows users to interact with the solar system through features like zooming, rotating the viewpoint, clicking on planets for details, adjusting simulation speed, or following specific planets. Deduct 3 points if only basic zoom functionality exists, 4 points if the camera control is difficult to use, and 3 points if no detailed information is available when selecting celestial bodies. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there accurate visual representation of celestial characteristics?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes realistic visual elements such as planet textures, relative sizes, distinctive features (Saturn's rings, Jupiter's Great Red Spot), appropriate lighting effects (with the Sun as light source), and shadow casting. Deduct 3 points if textures are missing, 4 points if lighting/shadows are incorrectly implemented, and 3 points if distinctive planetary features are absent. 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 browser resizing, varying device performance, touch vs. mouse inputs, WebGL support detection) and provide fallback mechanisms or helpful error messages. Code with strong robustness should gracefully degrade on lower-end devices and handle window resizing properly, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no edge cases 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. Time controls to speed up/slow down/reverse simulation 2. Educational information about each planet 3. Accurate star background with constellations 4. Orbital path visualization 5. Space missions/satellites visualization). 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 calculation of planetary positions (e.g., recalculating constants repeatedly) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without adding value (e.g., excessive particle effects that cause lag). 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 astronomy logic/rendering/UI layers), performance optimization techniques (object pooling, shader efficiency), and code maintainability. Deduct 3 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 4 points if the rendering pipeline isn't optimized for a large number of objects; deduct 3 points if there's no separation between the celestial mechanics calculations and rendering logic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visual design follows modern UI principles: 1) Clean interface with unobstructed view of the simulation 2) Proper contrast between UI elements and the space background 3) Professional typography for informational elements (readable against dark backgrounds, proper hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 4 points for poor readability of text against the background, and 3 points for inconsistent design language. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interaction meets performance standards: 1) Smooth camera movements without jittering 2) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback 3) Consistent frame rate even with multiple planets in view. Deduct 3 points for input lag exceeding 100ms, 4 points for frame rate drops below 30fps during normal operation, and 3 points for jerky transitions when changing view modes or focusing on different planets. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-engine-piston-movement-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 295,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Write a frontend program that simulates engine piston movement.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the engine piston simulation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation correctly models the piston motion physics (sinusoidal movement pattern, proper timing for strokes). Check if the connecting rod and crankshaft relationship is correctly represented mathematically. Score 0 if basic motion is absent, 5 if only basic up/down movement exists, and 10 if the complete four-stroke cycle (intake, compression, power, exhaust) is accurately visualized.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the visualization technically sound?",
-      "description": "Review whether the implementation uses appropriate frontend technologies (Canvas/SVG/WebGL) optimally. Check if the rendering loop maintains consistent frame rates (ideally 60fps) without stuttering. Deduct 5 points if inappropriate technology is chosen for the visualization (e.g., DOM manipulation for high-frequency updates), 3 points for frame rate issues, and 2 points for poor performance on mobile devices.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are physics parameters configurable and interactive?",
-      "description": "Assess if the simulation allows for user configuration of key parameters (RPM, cylinder dimensions, stroke length, etc.) with real-time response to changes. Review whether the UI provides interactive controls (sliders, inputs) that immediately affect the simulation. Deduct 5 points if parameters are hard-coded, 5 points if changes require page refresh, and 3 points if parameter ranges are unrealistic or unbound.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the simulation include educational features?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation includes informative elements such as real-time measurements (pressure, temperature, velocity), phase indicators, or detailed explanations of the engine cycle. Score 0 if no educational features exist, 5 if basic labels are present, and 10 if comprehensive, interactive learning features are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (like extreme parameter values, browser resizing, device rotation, etc.) and provide friendly error handling. Code with strong robustness should maintain simulation integrity across these edge cases, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no error handling exists, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Multiple viewpoints/cross-sections 2. Heat visualization during combustion 3. Sound effects synchronized with engine operation). 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 calculations that could be optimized 2. Visualization elements that don't contribute to understanding the engine mechanics 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of physics calculation/rendering/UI components), code reusability, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation between simulation logic and rendering. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows mechanical engineering visual conventions: 1) Accurate proportional representation 2) Clear differentiation between moving/static parts 3) Professional technical aesthetic (proper use of wireframes, cutaways, or transparent elements). Deduct 3 points for each visual inaccuracy, 5 points for unrealistic motion, and 5 points for poor readability of the mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation and controls conform to user expectations: 1) Consistent animation timing relative to selected RPM 2) Immediate visual feedback when parameters are changed 3) Smooth transitions between states or views. Deduct 5 points for delayed animation updates, 3 points for jittery motion, and 5 points for UI controls that don't provide immediate visual feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-program-simulates-celestial-body-movements.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 403,
-  "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 purposes. Write a frontend program that simulates celestial body movements.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the celestial body physics simulation accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements gravitational physics equations (F = G*m1*m2/r^2), orbital mechanics, and proper scaling of celestial parameters. Check if the simulation handles velocity vectors, acceleration calculations, and position updates using appropriate numerical integration methods (Euler, Verlet, or Runge-Kutta). Score 0 if basic physics are missing, 5 if only simple circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if it includes realistic gravitational interactions between multiple bodies.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the visual rendering system well-implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the rendering approach (Canvas 2D, WebGL, SVG, or Three.js) and assess whether it effectively displays celestial bodies with appropriate textures, lighting effects, and perspective. Check for proper scaling between bodies, visual cues for distance/size relationships, and smooth frame transitions. Deduct 3 points if rendering is basic without textures, 5 points if performance issues occur with more than 5 bodies, and 8 points if the visual representation is scientifically inaccurate. Full score for photorealistic rendering with optimized performance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the user interaction system comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of controls for manipulating the simulation (pause/play, speed adjustment, zoom in/out, rotation/panning). Check for features like clicking on bodies for information, dragging to adjust orbits, or adding new celestial objects. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction, 5 points if view manipulation is absent, and 3 points if the interface doesn't provide feedback during interactions. Full score requires intuitive controls with responsive feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the time control and simulation scaling implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes time scaling functionality (accelerating/decelerating simulation), time-step consistency regardless of frame rate, and prevention of calculation errors at high speeds. Check for a frame-rate independent physics calculation and proper handling of the animation loop. Deduct 5 points if time scaling is absent, 3 points if physics breaks at high speeds, and 3 points if the simulation doesn't maintain consistent calculations across different devices. Full score requires sophisticated time controls with delta-time implementation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases such as browser resizing, device rotation, touch events on mobile, and performance degradation with many bodies. Check for proper error handling, memory management (avoiding WebGL context loss), and graceful degradation on less powerful devices. Code with strong robustness should handle all these scenarios, giving 10 points. If robustness is average with some edge cases handled, give 5 points, and if no error handling exists, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Trail visualization for orbital paths 3. Real-time data visualization of orbital parameters 4. Realistic star field background with actual constellations). Add 2.5 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant calculation systems (e.g., multiple physics engines running simultaneously) 2. Feature modules unrelated to celestial simulation (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Excessive effects that severely impact performance (e.g., particle systems for every minor interaction). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core simulation accuracy is compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of physics engine, rendering system, and UI controls), code reusability (object-oriented design for celestial bodies), and performance optimizations (request animation frame usage, object pooling, GPU acceleration). Deduct 3 points if global state is overused, 3 points if there's significant code duplication, 2 points if no comments or documentation exist, and 2 points if browser compatibility is not considered. 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 astronomy visualization principles: 1) Scientific color schemes for celestial bodies 2) Clear contrast between bodies and background 3) Proportional representation or clear indication when scales are modified 4) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the simulation. Deduct 3 points for inaccurate celestial colors/textures, 3 points for cluttered controls, and 4 points for poor visibility of important elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains 60fps performance on standard hardware, transitions between zoom levels are smooth, and interactive manipulations (dragging bodies, adjusting orbits) provide immediate visual feedback. Deduct 3 points for each jerky transition, 3 points for delayed response to user input, 2 points for missing visual cues during interactions, and 2 points if the simulation slows noticeably with moderate complexity. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-program-simulates-operation-of-space-elevator.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 244,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for display purposes. Write a frontend program that simulates the operation of a space elevator (solar elevator).",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the space elevator physics simulation accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code simulates real physics principles correctly: 1) Counterweight mechanics and balance, 2) Variable gravitational effects based on altitude, 3) Tension calculations in the tether cable. Score 0 if no physics simulation exists, 5 if basic motion is simulated without accurate physics, and 10 for comprehensive physics with proper equations and constants.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the visual representation of the space elevator implemented completely?",
-      "description": "Check if the visualization includes all key components: Earth representation, tether cable with proper scaling, climber/elevator car, counterweight, and geostationary orbit position. Deduct 3 points if Earth's curvature is inaccurate, 2 points if the tether lacks visual tension indicators, and 3 points if the climber mechanics aren't visually clear. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the elevator movement and control system interactive?",
-      "description": "Review whether users can control the elevator's speed, direction, or stopping positions. Check if the interface includes altitude indicators, speed controls, and emergency protocols. Deduct 5 points if there are no interactive controls, 3 points if controls exist but lack feedback mechanisms, and 2 points if altitude changes aren't properly visualized. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the simulation include solar power mechanics?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements solar energy collection mechanics, energy consumption models based on elevator load and speed, and energy efficiency visualization. Score 0 if solar aspects are completely missing, 5 if basic solar elements exist without proper energy calculations, and 10 for a comprehensive solar power system with variable efficiency based on position relative to Earth and Sun.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid user inputs, extreme speed settings, resource limitations, browser compatibility 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. Day/night cycle affecting solar efficiency 2. Space debris avoidance mini-game 3. Realistic atmospheric visual effects at different altitudes). 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 control speed) 2. Function modules unrelated to space elevators (e.g., unrelated space exploration features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems that slow rendering). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics simulation/rendering/user interface layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast movements, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-solar-system-motion-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 291,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Help me write frontend code that simulates the solar system in motion.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system structure accurately modeled?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly sets up the sun and planets with appropriate scaling for size, distance, and orbital periods. Check if all eight planets are included (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) with their distinctive characteristics. Score 0 if only basic circles are used, 5 if planets have appropriate sizes but incorrect orbital distances, and 10 if the model maintains scientifically accurate relative proportions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the planetary motion mathematically correct?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the orbital mechanics follow Kepler's laws with elliptical orbits and varying speeds (faster when closer to the sun). Check if the rotation axes and tilts are implemented correctly. Deduct 5 points if orbits are perfectly circular rather than elliptical, 3 points if orbital speeds don't vary according to position, and 5 points if rotation mechanics are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the visual representations of celestial bodies detailed?",
-      "description": "Check if the planets have distinctive textures/appearances (Earth's blue oceans/white clouds, Jupiter's bands, Saturn's rings, etc.). Verify if lighting effects create appropriate shadowing as planets rotate. Award 0 points for basic colored circles, 5 points for basic textures, and 10 points for detailed textures with proper lighting effects.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the simulation include interactive features?",
-      "description": "Assess whether users can interact with the simulation (zoom in/out, change perspective, adjust simulation speed, focus on specific planets). Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction feature. Award full 10 points only if the simulation allows smooth camera transitions between different celestial bodies with intuitive controls.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, different screen sizes, varying performance capabilities) and provide fallback 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. Realistic star background 2. Comet/asteroid visualizations 3. Time progression display 4. Educational information tooltips). 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 rendering logics 2. Function modules unrelated to astronomical simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems that cause lag). 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 physics/rendering/interaction layers), performance optimization techniques (like instancing for stars), and browser compatibility. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code recomputes stable values in render loops; deduct 5 points if the simulation drastically slows down on mobile devices. 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) Appropriate use of space (planets properly scaled against the vastness of space) 2) Balanced composition that guides the eye naturally 3) Controls that are intuitive yet unobtrusive. Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 5 points for confusing visual hierarchy, and 5 points for controls that obscure the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and performance optimized?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains a consistent frame rate (minimum 30fps) and uses appropriate rendering techniques: 1) Efficient use of WebGL/Canvas 2) Level-of-detail adjustments based on zoom level 3) Proper handling of off-screen objects. Deduct 5 points for noticeable stuttering during normal operation, 3 points for lack of performance optimizations, and 5 points if the simulation becomes unusable on average hardware. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-solar-system-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 359,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. Write a frontend program that simulates the motion of the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model astronomically accurate?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements planetary orbits with proper relative sizes, distances, and orbital periods. Review if planetary motion follows Kepler's laws with elliptical orbits. Score 0 if planets are randomly positioned, 5 if relative sizes and orbits are approximated, and 10 if the simulation includes accurate orbital mechanics including eccentricity and inclination.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are celestial body movements properly animated?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the animation implementation for planetary rotation and revolution. Check if requestAnimationFrame is used for smooth animation instead of setInterval/setTimeout. Verify that the animation maintains consistent speed regardless of device performance. Deduct 5 points if animation is jerky on standard hardware, 3 points if the animation loop isn't optimized for performance. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the visualization dimensionally appropriate?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the visualization effectively handles the vast scale differences in the solar system through techniques like logarithmic scaling or interactive zooming. Check if the simulation offers multiple viewing perspectives (heliocentric vs. geocentric). Deduct 5 points if scale representation is misleading, 3 points if only a single fixed perspective is available. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the implementation include interactive features?",
-      "description": "Review whether the simulation offers user controls like speed adjustment, camera angle changes, focus tracking of specific planets, and information display on hover/click. Deduct 5 points if basic time controls (pause/play/speed) are missing, 3 points if camera manipulation is limited. Give 10 points if the simulation is fully interactive with multiple control options.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, device rotation, performance throttling, etc.) and provide graceful degradation for older browsers. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Comet/asteroid visualization 2. Space mission trajectories 3. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 4. Astronomical event simulation like eclipses). 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 calculation of orbital positions 2. Feature modules unrelated to solar system simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without educational value (e.g., excessive particle effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics engine/rendering/UI controllers), appropriate use of design patterns, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is high; deduct 5 points if no optimization is implemented for complex rendering. 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) Appropriate color scheme for space visualization (dark background, contrasting planet colors) 2) Clean UI layout for controls and information displays 3) Professional typography and labeling system. Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for poor visibility of celestial bodies, and 5 points for chaotic information display. 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 user expectations: 1) Responsive zoom and pan controls 2) Smooth transitions when changing focus between planets 3) Intuitive time control interface. Deduct 5 points for laggy interaction, 3 points for confusing navigation controls, and 5 points for disorienting camera movements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-sun-movement-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 413,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable whenever possible. Create a frontend program that simulates the movement of the sun.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the sun's basic movement simulation implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Check if the code accurately simulates the sun's arc movement across the sky using proper mathematics (sin/cos functions for circular path). Verify if the animation runs smoothly with requestAnimationFrame rather than setInterval. Score 0 if no movement, 5 if basic animation exists but path is inaccurate, 10 if the trajectory is physically realistic with proper timing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the simulation include day/night cycle visualization?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code implements a complete day/night cycle with color changes in the sky (gradient from blue to orange/red at sunset/sunrise to dark blue/black at night). Check if light intensity changes accordingly and if there's appropriate ambient lighting simulation. Deduct 5 points if the transition isn't smooth, 3 points if only basic color change exists. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there an interactive control mechanism for the simulation?",
-      "description": "Assess if users can control the simulation through features like play/pause buttons, speed adjustment, manual time setting, or dragging the sun. Check if controls respond immediately (≤100ms) and if transitions between states are smooth. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control, and 5 points if interaction is sluggish. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the visualization include environmental elements that respond to the sun's position?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes reactive elements like shadows that change direction/length based on sun position, plants/objects that respond to daylight, or atmospheric effects (like lens flare). Deduct 3 points for each missing environmental response that would make the simulation more realistic. 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 window resizing, browser compatibility issues, performance throttling on slow devices) and provide 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. Geographic location input to match real-world sun patterns 2. Weather effects that interact with sunlight 3. Realistic light refraction/atmosphere simulation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementations of similar animations 2. Function modules unrelated to sun movement simulation 3. Fancy effects that significantly affect performance without adding to the core simulation. 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 animation logic/rendering/user interface), consistent naming conventions, and optimized rendering techniques (like canvas vs. DOM elements). Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if animation frames are inefficiently managed; deduct 5 points if there's no performance optimization for complex visuals. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visual design follows modern principles: 1) Natural color palette for sky/sun gradients 2) Proper scaling that works across different screen sizes 3) Professional use of light/shadow effects that mimic real physics. Deduct 3 points for unrealistic colors, 5 points for poor scaling on different screens, and 5 points for physically impossible lighting effects. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation performs consistently: 1) Maintains 60fps even with complex elements 2) Sun movement is fluid without jitter 3) Transitions between time periods are natural and gradual. Deduct 5 points for each noticeable frame drop or stutter, 3 points for abrupt transitions between day/night states, and 5 points for inconsistent animation speeds. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}