@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

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

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 307,
-  "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 when possible. Write a frontend system that simulates the orbital movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model scientifically accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the celestial body models (Sun, planets, major moons) are proportionally sized and correctly positioned. Check if orbital parameters (semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination) match astronomical data. Score 0 if planets are randomly placed, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if Keplerian elliptical orbits with proper eccentricity are accurately modeled.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the orbital movement physics correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of gravitational physics. Verify if Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation are properly applied with F=G(m₁m₂/r²). Check for time-scaling controls to observe both fast and slow movements. Deduct 5 points if gravitational interactions between planets are missing, and 3 points if orbital velocity calculations are incorrect. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the visualization rendering optimized for performance?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the rendering uses appropriate technology (Canvas, WebGL, SVG) based on the complexity. Check if the code implements optimization techniques such as frustum culling, level-of-detail (LOD), or request animation frame throttling. Deduct 5 points if the frame rate drops below 30 FPS with all planets visible, and 3 points if there's no performance optimization for mobile devices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the system provide interactive camera controls and viewpoints?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of camera controls (pan, zoom, rotate) and predefined viewpoints (top-down, ecliptic plane, planet-centric). Check if the perspective change is smooth with proper easing functions. Deduct 5 points if camera controls are limited to 2D only, and 3 points if there are no preset viewpoints. 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 resize, WebGL context loss, memory constraints, 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. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Comet or asteroid visualization with proper trajectories 3. Time control to view historical/future planetary alignments). 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 for static orbital parameters 2. Excessive detail in models that impacts performance (e.g., high-poly models for distant objects) 3. Unnecessary visual effects that don't contribute to astronomical understanding. 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 engine/rendering/UI 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 with appropriate astronomical visual cues 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional font system for astronomical data display (readable against space background). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for inaccurate color representation of celestial bodies, and 5 points for chaotic information architecture. 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) Response time ≤ 100ms for interactive controls 2) Smooth transitions when changing between celestial bodies 3) Clear visual indicators for selected objects and available interactions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for stuttering animations during planet transitions, and 5 points for confusing navigation between planetary views. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-orbital-trajectories-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 925,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Take care to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. Create a cool webpage that simulates the orbital trajectories of the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the orbital mechanics of the solar system bodies (planets, moons, etc.) with proper scaling, distances, and orbital periods. Score 0 if planets don't follow orbital paths, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented but without accurate relative sizes/distances, and 10 if the model includes elliptical orbits with proper orbital parameters (eccentricity, inclination, etc.).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are celestial body physics and rendering properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the simulation includes proper physics for celestial body motion (gravity effects, orbital velocity variations at different distances from the Sun) and whether the rendering includes details like rotation, axial tilt, and surface texturing of planets. Deduct 5 points if physics calculations are simplified to the point of inaccuracy, and 3 points if planetary rendering lacks important visual details. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the visualization include interactive camera controls?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation allows users to explore the solar system from different perspectives through zooming, panning, and rotating the view. Look for smooth transitions between viewpoints, the ability to focus on specific planets, and intuitive control mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if camera controls are limited to basic zooming only, and 3 points if transitions are jerky or unnatural. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the animation loop efficiently implemented with proper timing control?",
-      "description": "Check whether the animation uses requestAnimationFrame for smooth rendering, implements proper time scaling controls (speed up/slow down/pause), and maintains consistent performance without FPS drops. Deduct 5 points if the animation uses setTimeout/setInterval instead of requestAnimationFrame, 3 points if there's no time control mechanism, and 5 points if the animation visibly stutters on standard hardware. 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 resize, different screen resolutions, performance limitations, 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. Realistic lens flare for the sun 2. Asteroid belt visualization 3. Space mission trajectories overlay 4. Realistic star background with actual constellations). 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 (e.g., multiple shadow calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to space visualization (e.g., unnecessary UI widgets) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems). 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 engine/rendering/UI layers), proper use of design patterns, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global namespace pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimizations are implemented (such as object pooling for particles or level-of-detail 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 visualization principles: 1) Scientific color palette for planetary bodies 2) Clear visual hierarchy between UI controls and the simulation 3) Proper information density in planetary labels and data overlays. Deduct 3 points for each illegible label, 5 points for visually confusing planetary textures, and 5 points for cluttered UI elements that obscure the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Planet selection response ≤ 100ms 2) Camera transition animations between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback when interacting with UI elements or celestial bodies. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring camera movements during transitions, and 5 points if critical information like orbital paths is difficult to perceive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

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

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 455,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Write a front-end program that simulates the celestial bodies' movement in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the solar system with correct relative positions, sizes, and orbital paths of celestial bodies. Score 0 if the model is completely inaccurate, 5 if basic positioning is implemented but with significant inaccuracies, and 10 if the model closely resembles the actual solar system with proper scale and positioning.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the orbital movement physics correctly simulated?",
-      "description": "Check whether the celestial bodies follow accurate orbital mechanics (elliptical orbits, Kepler's laws). Evaluate if proper physics calculations are used for gravity, velocity, and acceleration. Award 10 points for physically accurate simulation with proper mathematical models, 5 points for basic circular orbits without proper physics, and 0 points if movements are random or physically impossible.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are celestial body rotations and revolutions properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether planets both rotate on their axes and revolve around the Sun at appropriate speeds relative to each other. Award 10 points if both rotation and revolution are implemented with correct relative speeds, 5 points if only one type of movement is correctly implemented, and 0 points if neither is properly shown.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the visualization quality of celestial bodies high-fidelity?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the visual representation of planets and other celestial bodies. Check for texture mapping, lighting effects, and distinctive features of each planet. Award 10 points for high-quality 3D representations with textures and lighting, 5 points for basic 3D or good 2D representations, and 3 points for simple colored spheres.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, performance throttling on different devices, browser compatibility issues, etc.) 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. Time controls to speed up/slow down simulation 2. Camera controls to view from different perspectives 3. Information panels for celestial bodies 4. Orbit visualization options). 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 implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple camera control systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems or shader effects). 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 engine/rendering/UI layers), code organization, 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 not implemented. 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) Clean, unobtrusive UI that doesn't detract from the simulation 2) Proper layout spacing for any controls 3) Professional font system and information display. Deduct 3 points for each poorly implemented UI element, 5 points for cluttered interfaces that obscure the simulation, and 5 points for illegible or poorly positioned text. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and performance optimized?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation runs at a consistent frame rate without stuttering: 1) Maintains 60fps on standard hardware 2) Uses appropriate techniques like requestAnimationFrame 3) Implements performance optimizations like object pooling or level-of-detail rendering. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops, 3 points for inefficient rendering techniques, and 5 points for excessive CPU/GPU usage causing device heating. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/three-body-orbital-trajectory-visualization.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1129,
-  "question": "You are a coding 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 visualization program for the three-body orbital trajectory using HTML.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the three-body physics simulation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements Newton's gravitational equations and numerical integration methods (such as Runge-Kutta or Verlet integration) for three-body dynamics. Check if gravitational forces between all three bodies are calculated with proper vector mathematics and if the simulation maintains energy conservation principles. Score 0 if basic physics is wrong, 5 if only simplified gravity is implemented, and 10 if accurate three-body dynamics with proper numerical methods are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the orbital trajectory visualization effectively rendered?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization uses appropriate HTML5 Canvas or SVG to render smooth orbital paths with historical trajectory trails. Check if the rendering includes proper scaling, coordinate transformation, and viewport management to display the complex orbital patterns clearly. Deduct 5 points if trajectories are choppy or discontinuous, 3 points if scaling is inappropriate making orbits hard to observe. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are interactive controls and real-time parameter adjustment provided?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes interactive controls for adjusting simulation parameters such as initial velocities, masses, time step, and simulation speed. Evaluate if users can pause/resume, reset, or modify the system in real-time. Deduct 5 points if controls are unresponsive or cause simulation instability, 3 points if parameter ranges are not properly bounded. Give 10 points if comprehensive interactive controls are smoothly implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the animation performance optimized and frame rate stable?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the animation loop uses requestAnimationFrame for smooth rendering and maintains consistent frame rates (ideally 60fps). Check if the code implements proper performance optimization techniques such as object pooling, efficient collision detection, and avoiding unnecessary DOM manipulations. Deduct 5 points if frame rate drops below 30fps during normal operation, 3 points if animation stutters during parameter changes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as extreme parameter values, numerical instabilities, browser compatibility issues, and user input errors) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should prevent simulation explosion and handle edge cases gracefully, 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 visualization experience (e.g., 1. Multiple preset famous three-body configurations like Figure-8 or Lagrange points 2. Data export functionality for trajectory coordinates 3. Comparative view showing energy/momentum conservation graphs 4. Poincaré section analysis visualization). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar physics calculations (e.g., multiple integration methods running simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to orbital simulation (e.g., built-in games or unrelated widgets) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex particle systems or heavy animations). 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/renderer/UI components), code organization with proper separation of concerns, and maintainable structure. Deduct 5 points if global variables pollute the namespace or no design patterns are used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if mathematical calculations are not properly encapsulated. 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 visualization principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme with good contrast for celestial bodies (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear control panels (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography for labels and values (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor color choices that hinder visibility, and 5 points for chaotic interface layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactive elements conform to user experience standards: 1) Control response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions when changing parameters with duration between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual feedback for all user interactions 4) Intuitive zoom and pan controls for viewing different scales. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive control, 3 points for jarring transitions during parameter changes, and 5 points for unintuitive navigation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/three-body-problem-motion-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 391,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for demonstration when possible. Write frontend code that displays the three-body problem in motion.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the three-body problem accurately modeled mathematically?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements the correct differential equations that govern the three-body problem (typically using Newton's laws of gravitation). Check if the gravitational constant is properly applied, masses are configurable, and the force calculations are accurate. Score 0 if the mathematical model is incorrect, 5 if it's simplified but functional, and 10 if it accurately implements the complete n-body equations with proper vector mathematics.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is a suitable numerical integration method implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the numerical integration technique used (e.g., Euler, Runge-Kutta, Verlet, etc.). The three-body problem requires stable integration to prevent numerical errors from accumulating. Deduct 5 points for using simple Euler method without error compensation, 3 points if the time step isn't adaptive based on velocity/acceleration. Give 10 points for implementing a high-order method like RK4 or velocity Verlet with appropriate step size control.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the visualization rendering appropriate and accurate?",
-      "description": "Check if the visualization properly maps the physical simulation to the screen space, with appropriate scaling and coordinate transformation. Verify that the trajectories accurately reflect the computed positions, with options to display paths/trails. Deduct 5 points if the visualization doesn't maintain proper aspect ratios or if the scaling is inappropriate for viewing the entire system. Give 10 points for a visualization that clearly shows the complex orbital patterns with proper perspective handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are interactive controls and configurations provided?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the implementation allows users to configure key parameters (masses, initial positions/velocities, simulation speed) and offers interactive controls (zoom, pan, pause/resume, reset). Deduct 3 points for each missing essential control, and 2 points if parameter boundaries aren't enforced. Give 10 points for a full suite of intuitive controls with preset configurations for interesting three-body scenarios (like figure-eight or specific Lagrangian point demonstrations).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases such as bodies getting too close (causing numerical instability), very different mass scales, or extreme velocities. Check for overflow protection and error handling. Code with strong robustness should detect and manage these situations with appropriate warnings. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling and stability measures, 5 points if basic protections exist but edge cases can still crash the simulation, and 0 points if no protections are implemented.",
-      "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 energy conservation tracking 2. Chaos indicator visualizations 3. Reference frames switching 4. Time-reversibility demonstration). 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 physics calculations that could be optimized 2. Function modules unrelated to the three-body problem 3. Fancy visual effects that significantly impact performance without adding to understanding. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is slowed down by unnecessary code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of physics engine from rendering logic), code organization, and potential for reuse or extension. Deduct 5 points if global state is overused; deduct 5 points if the code is difficult to extend to n-body problems; deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between computation and visualization concerns. 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 modern design principles: 1) Clear visual distinction between bodies (size/color representing mass) 2) Proper use of contrast for trajectories 3) Clean interface elements that don't obstruct the simulation view. Deduct 3 points for cluttered displays, 5 points for poor color choices that make trajectories hard to follow, and 5 points for controls that interfere with viewing the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and performant?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains consistent frame rates even during complex orbital interactions: 1) Consistent 30+ FPS during normal operation 2) Efficient canvas/WebGL usage for rendering 3) Background computation handled with web workers if intensive. Deduct 5 points if the simulation noticeably lags during normal use, 3 points if there's no frame limiting to prevent resource overuse, and 5 points if the browser becomes unresponsive during certain configurations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/webpage-orbital-patterns-celestial-bodies-solar-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 247,
-  "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. Help me create a webpage that shows the orbital patterns of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model scientifically accurate?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately represents celestial bodies with correct relative sizes, orbital distances, and orbital periods according to astronomical data. Check if planets follow Kepler's laws of planetary motion with proper elliptical orbits and orbital inclinations. Score 0 if planets are randomly positioned, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if elliptical orbits with proper physics parameters are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are all major celestial bodies of the solar system represented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes all eight planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), the Sun at the center, and optionally dwarf planets, moons, and asteroid belts. Deduct 1 point for each missing major planet, 3 points if the Sun isn't centralized correctly, and 2 points if Earth's moon is missing. Award bonus points for including accurate representations of moons for other planets or asteroid belts.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the orbital visualization interactive and dynamic?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the orbital patterns are animated to show planetary movement with correct relative speeds. Check for interactive features such as zoom in/out, rotation of view angle, time controls (speed up/slow down/pause), and ability to focus on specific celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if orbits are static, 3 points if user interaction is missing, and 5 points if planetary motion doesn't reflect relative orbital periods.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there educational information about the celestial bodies?",
-      "description": "Check if the visualization provides educational value through tooltips, information panels, or labels showing details about each planet (e.g., diameter, mass, distance from sun, orbital period, composition). Deduct 5 points if no information is provided, 3 points if information is inaccurate, and 2 points if information is difficult to access or read while viewing the simulation.",
-      "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, touch vs. mouse input) 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. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Trajectory tracking visualization 3. Toggle between 2D and 3D views 4. Simulation of historical astronomical events). 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 zoom controls) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system visualization (e.g., unrelated animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects that slow down the 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 astronomical data/rendering/interaction logic), use of appropriate libraries (Three.js, D3.js, etc.), and performance optimization. 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 no performance optimizations are implemented for smooth animation. 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 scheme that represents space and celestial bodies accurately 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional font system that ensures readability against the space background. Deduct 3 points for each visually cluttered element, 5 points for inaccurate celestial body representations, and 5 points for poor contrast making text unreadable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the orbital animations and user interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Animation runs at minimum 30fps without stuttering 2) Camera transitions are smooth when changing focus between planets 3) UI controls are responsive with clear visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for choppy animations, 3 points for abrupt camera movements, and 5 points for laggy UI responses. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/electrical-plug-phone-charger-portable-speaker-icon.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 116,
-  "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 display.\nPlease help me implement the following requirements using SVG code: create a black and white icon featuring an electrical plug connected to a phone charger, along with a portable speaker with a cord.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the electrical plug accurately depicted in SVG?",
-      "description": "Check if the plug has the correct proportions, prongs, and structural elements typical of an electrical plug. The SVG should use appropriate path elements with precise coordinates. Score 0 if the plug is missing, 5 if basic shape is present but inaccurate, and 10 if the plug is detailed and recognizable.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the phone charger component properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the charger is correctly connected to the plug and has appropriate details (adapter body, cable connection points). The SVG implementation should use proper grouping (<g> elements) for related components. Deduct 5 points if the charger lacks distinctive features, 3 points if connection to the plug is unclear. Give 10 points for a well-detailed, recognizable charger.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the portable speaker accurately visualized?",
-      "description": "Verify if the speaker has recognizable features (speaker grill, volume controls, etc.) and maintains proper proportions. The SVG paths should use appropriate curves and lines to create a realistic speaker shape. Score 0 if the speaker is missing, 5 if only basic outline is present, and 10 if the speaker is detailed and identifiable.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the connecting cord between components properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the cord connecting the charger and speaker is implemented with smooth curves using appropriate path commands (like bezier curves). The cord should have consistent thickness and natural bending. Deduct 5 points if the cord uses only straight lines, 3 points if the connections to devices are imprecise. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG code is properly structured with viewBox attribute, appropriate dimensions, and organized elements. Check if the code handles scaling appropriately and maintains aspect ratio. Code with strong robustness should use relative units rather than absolute pixel values. Give 10 points for robust implementation, 5 points for average implementation with minor issues, and 0 points for poor implementation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the SVG includes additional relevant features (e.g., 1. Animation of power flowing through cord 2. Interactive elements that respond to mouse events 3. Creative use of gradients or patterns to enhance visual appeal). 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 path definitions or duplicate elements 2. Elements unrelated to the requested icon components 3. Excessive detail that complicates the SVG without adding clarity. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core design is obscured by redundant elements.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review the SVG structure including proper naming of elements, use of groups for logical organization, and optimization techniques (path simplification, appropriate decimal precision). Deduct 5 points if elements lack meaningful ids or classes; deduct 5 points if the code is unnecessarily verbose or unoptimized; deduct 5 points if there's no consideration for accessibility (missing title/desc elements). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the icon design meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows icon design principles: 1) Consistent stroke thickness throughout 2) Proper visual weight balance between elements 3) Clear silhouette recognizable at small sizes. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent line weights, 5 points for poor balance between elements, and 5 points for lack of clarity when scaled down. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the black and white color scheme effectively implemented?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the monochromatic design uses black and white effectively: 1) Appropriate contrast between elements 2) Strategic use of negative space 3) Clear visual hierarchy without relying on color. Deduct 5 points for poor contrast making elements hard to distinguish, 3 points for inconsistent use of fills vs. strokes, and 5 points for missed opportunities to use negative space effectively. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/implement-svg-amazon-logo.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 94,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Please help me implement this SVG image using code - an Amazon logo with the Amazon logo in the middle.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Amazon logo accurately implemented in SVG?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG code correctly reproduces the Amazon logo with its distinctive curved arrow from 'a' to 'z' (representing that Amazon sells everything from A to Z) and the trademark smile. Check if the proportions match the official logo (roughly 2.55:1 width to height ratio). Deduct 5 points if the curved arrow is missing or inaccurate, 5 points if the smile is incorrect, and 3 points if the text is not properly rendered. Score 0 if the logo is unrecognizable as Amazon, 5 if it's recognizable but with significant inaccuracies, and 10 if it closely matches the official logo.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the SVG implementation optimized and clean?",
-      "description": "Check if the SVG uses appropriate elements (paths, groups, etc.) and if the path data is optimized (not unnecessarily complex). Amazon's logo should use smooth Bézier curves for the smile/arrow. Evaluate if the implementation avoids redundant nodes and uses proper grouping of elements. Deduct 5 points if path data is overly complex or inefficient, 3 points if inappropriate SVG elements are used, and 2 points if there's no grouping of related elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the logo properly centered and positioned?",
-      "description": "Verify that the logo is properly centered within the SVG viewport and that the viewBox attribute is properly set to ensure the logo is fully visible and properly scaled. Check if the implementation handles responsiveness correctly. Deduct 5 points if the logo is off-center, 3 points if parts of the logo are cut off due to improper viewBox settings, and 2 points if the SVG doesn't scale properly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the Amazon brand colors implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation uses the correct official Amazon colors: primarily black for the text and orange (#FF9900) for the smile/arrow. Verify that the colors are applied consistently and appropriately to the different parts of the logo. Deduct 5 points for incorrect color values, 3 points for inconsistent color application, and 2 points for unnecessary additional colors. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the SVG implementation handles different viewport sizes, browser compatibility issues, and includes fallback options (like title and description attributes for accessibility). Check if the code includes proper namespacing and avoids ID conflicts. Deduct 5 points if the SVG breaks at different sizes, 3 points for missing accessibility attributes, and 2 points for potential ID conflicts. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Subtle animations like the smile/arrow pulsing, 2. Interactive elements that respond to hover/click, 3. Creative integration with background elements). 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. Unnecessary graphical elements not part of the Amazon logo 2. Excessive styling that doesn't contribute to the logo's appearance 3. Complicated animations that distract from the logo itself. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with the core logo presentation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review code organization, documentation (comments explaining complex parts), and whether the implementation follows SVG best practices. Check if the code avoids hard-coded values where possible and uses meaningful names for elements or groups. Deduct 5 points for poor organization or unclear structure, 3 points for lack of documentation, and 2 points for non-semantic element naming. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the visual output meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the rendered SVG follows logo design principles: 1) Clean edges without pixelation at any zoom level 2) Proper negative space around the logo (padding) 3) Balanced visual weight between text and graphical elements. Deduct 3 points for jaggy edges or pixelation, 4 points for improper spacing or crowding, and 3 points for imbalanced visual elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the implementation accessible and reusable?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the SVG includes ARIA attributes for screen readers, proper title and description elements, and whether it can be easily integrated into different contexts (web pages, documents, etc.). Check if the SVG avoids fixed dimensions that would prevent proper scaling. Deduct 5 points for missing accessibility features, 3 points for implementation that makes reuse difficult, and 2 points for scaling issues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "SVG Generation-SVG Icons/Logos",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/svg_generation-svg_icons_logos/implement-svg-black-and-white-snapple-logo-with-hat.json

@@ -1,3 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "svg": "<svg width=\"200\" height=\"200\" viewBox=\"0 0 200 200\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/2000/svg\">\n  <rect x=\"0\" y=\"0\" width=\"200\" height=\"200\" fill=\"white\"/>\n  <circle cx=\"100\" cy=\"100\" r=\"80\" stroke=\"black\" stroke-width=\"4\"/>\n  <text x=\"100\" y=\"110\" font-family=\"Arial, sans-serif\" font-size=\"40\" fill=\"black\" text-anchor=\"middle\">Snapple</text>\n  <path d=\"M60 60 L140 60 L120 30 L80 30 Z\" fill=\"black\"/>\n</svg>"
-}