@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/game_development-casual/web-english-vocabulary-matching-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1371,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that the code you provide is executable and properly displayed. I want to create a word-matching elimination game (like a memory game) for English vocabulary, as a web application. How should I provide instructions to you?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the word-matching game core mechanism fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the card flip system through HTML/JavaScript, including card randomization, matching logic validation, and scoring system. Check if the game includes proper card state management (hidden/revealed/matched) and win condition detection. Score 0 if the core matching logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic card flipping is implemented, and 10 if complete matching rules with scoring system are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the English vocabulary learning system effectively integrated?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation includes a comprehensive vocabulary management system with word-definition pairing, pronunciation support (audio playback), and difficulty level categorization. Check for vocabulary progress tracking and adaptive learning features. Deduct 5 points if pronunciation is missing, 3 points if no difficulty progression exists. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the game progression and level system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements multiple difficulty levels, progressive vocabulary sets, and achievement/scoring systems. Verify the presence of timer functionality, streak counting, and performance analytics. Deduct 5 points if no level progression exists, 3 points if scoring system is incomplete. Check for save/load game progress functionality. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the complete game state management and data persistence constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes comprehensive game state management with local storage for vocabulary progress, user preferences, and game statistics. Evaluate the implementation of game pause/resume, vocabulary set customization, and performance tracking over time. Deduct 5 points if data persistence is not implemented, 3 points if user progress tracking is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with robust data management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid vocabulary data, audio loading failures, localStorage limitations, rapid clicking, 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 learning experience (e.g., 1. Voice recognition for pronunciation practice 2. Adaptive difficulty based on performance 3. Social sharing of achievements 4. Custom vocabulary import 5. Multi-language support). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple scoring systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to vocabulary learning (e.g., built-in social media integration) 3. Fancy effects that affect learning focus (e.g., distracting particle animations during gameplay). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core learning 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 game logic/vocabulary management/UI rendering layers), component reusability, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or MVC/MVP patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no configuration management exists for vocabulary sets. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern educational app design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching suitable for learning (no more than 3 primary colors, high contrast for readability) 2) Proper card layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 16px for accessibility, line height over 1.4 times). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered visual element, 5 points for color combinations that strain the eyes, and 5 points for poor card arrangement that affects gameplay. 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 educational game standards: 1) Card flip animation duration controlled between 250-400ms 2) Click feedback delay ≤ 80ms for responsive feel 3) Clear visual feedback for correct/incorrect matches 4) Smooth transitions between game states. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without proper feedback, 3 points for jarring animation transitions, and 5 points if card flip animations interfere with gameplay rhythm. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-casual/web-fast-paced-ball-dot-eater-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1783,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable. Create web code for a fully automatic fast-paced game where a ball eats numerous dots.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core game mechanic implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the ball movement system through HTML5 Canvas/JavaScript, and whether it includes proper collision detection between the ball and dots. Score 0 if the core interaction logic is not implemented, 5 if only basic movement is implemented without proper physics, and 10 if smooth movement with proper momentum and collision is fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the automatic gameplay system functioning properly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the ball moves automatically with intelligent pathfinding towards dots, implements proper decision-making algorithms for selecting which dots to target, and handles movement smoothly without player intervention. Deduct 5 points if the automation is rudimentary (straight-line movement only), and 3 points if the decision-making isn't optimized. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the dot generation and management system well-designed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code implements proper dot spawning mechanisms with appropriate distribution algorithms, performance optimization for handling numerous dots simultaneously, and proper cleanup when dots are consumed. Deduct 5 points if dots appear in predictable patterns, and 3 points if performance degrades with many dots. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the game progression and scoring system implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes game state management such as score tracking, difficulty progression (increasing speed or complexity), and win/lose conditions. Deduct 5 points if scoring is absent or simplistic, and 3 points if difficulty doesn't increase as the player progresses. Give 10 points if fully implemented with visual feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser compatibility issues, window resizing, performance bottlenecks with many elements, etc.) and provide graceful degradation 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. Dynamic difficulty adjustment based on performance 2. Visual effects when consuming dots 3. Variable dot sizes with different point values). 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 collision detection systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to the core gameplay (e.g., unnecessary settings) 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 game logic/view/physics layers), reusable component patterns, 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 the game loop implementation is inefficient. 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 gaming design principles: 1) Contrasting colors between ball, dots, and background for clear visibility 2) Proper layout with score/status information not interfering with gameplay 3) Consistent visual style throughout. Deduct 3 points for each visual element that hinders gameplay, 5 points for poor color choices that make objects hard to distinguish, and 5 points for cluttered UI. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the game performance smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the game maintains a consistent frame rate (60fps target): 1) No visible stuttering when many dots are present 2) Animation remains fluid throughout gameplay 3) No input lag when the game state changes. Deduct 5 points if the frame rate drops below 30fps with normal dot counts, 3 points for visible rendering artifacts, and 5 points for significant performance degradation over time. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/game_development-casual/web-mini-game-trending-hit-songs.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 913,
-  "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 and can be demonstrated. Help me create a web mini-game that randomly generates currently trending hit songs.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the song generation algorithm properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code implements a robust random song generation algorithm that can produce varied yet recognizable trending song structures. Check if it incorporates parameters for tempo, key, chord progressions, and melodic patterns found in current hit songs. Score 0 if no generation logic exists, 5 if basic random selection is implemented, and 10 if it includes sophisticated music theory principles with genre variations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the trending song data source integration functional?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the application connects to an external API (like Spotify, Billboard, or LastFM) to retrieve current trending song data, or includes a manually curated database with recent hits. Check if the data is properly refreshed and if song characteristics are extracted correctly. Deduct 5 points if the trending data is outdated or static, and 3 points if the integration is unreliable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the audio synthesis and playback system well-implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code utilizes Web Audio API effectively to synthesize and play the generated music. Look for implementation of proper sound generation, effects processing, and mixing. Test if the playback controls (play, pause, stop) work smoothly without audio glitches. Deduct 5 points for poor sound quality, 3 points for playback inconsistencies, and 5 points if volume control is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the game include engaging interactive elements?",
-      "description": "Verify if the mini-game incorporates interactive elements that make it engaging as a game rather than just a music generator. This could include features like guessing the original song, rating/scoring system, customization options, or challenges. Deduct 5 points if user interaction is minimal, and 3 points if the gamification elements don't enhance the experience. Give 10 points if the game is genuinely fun and engaging.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as API failures, audio playback issues, browser compatibility problems, 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. Visualizing the music with animated elements 2. Social sharing of generated songs with custom album art 3. Voice or instrument recognition to influence generation). 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 audio playback systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to music generation or game mechanics (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects or 3D 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 music generation logic, audio engine, UI components, and game mechanics), 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 sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/game_development-casual/web-vocabulary-memorization-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1763,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code in your demonstration. Design a web-based vocabulary memorization game (HTML+CSS) for third-grade students.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the vocabulary memorization game core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements vocabulary display, user input validation, scoring mechanism, and progress tracking through HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Check if it includes word-image matching, spelling exercises, and pronunciation features suitable for third-grade level. Score 0 if core learning interaction is not implemented, 5 if only basic word display is implemented, and 10 if complete vocabulary learning cycle with feedback is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the age-appropriate game mechanics system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the game includes appropriate difficulty progression, reward systems (stars/badges), and encouraging feedback mechanisms suitable for 8-9 year olds. Check for implementation of hint systems, mistake tolerance, and positive reinforcement. Deduct 5 points if difficulty curve is too steep, and 3 points if reward feedback is insufficient. Full score requires engaging gamification elements that maintain child attention.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the learning progress tracking and vocabulary management system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system tracks individual word mastery levels, implements spaced repetition algorithms, and provides progress visualization suitable for children. Evaluate if it includes vocabulary categorization, difficulty adjustment based on performance, and learning analytics. Deduct 5 points if no progress persistence is implemented, and 3 points if vocabulary difficulty adaptation is missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are child-friendly accessibility and safety features properly constructed?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes appropriate accessibility features for young learners (large buttons, clear fonts, audio support), parental controls, and safe interaction patterns. Check for implementation of session time limits, clear navigation, and error prevention mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if accessibility guidelines for children are not followed, and 3 points if safety considerations are missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input, browser compatibility issues, audio loading failures, etc.) and provide child-friendly error messages or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases without breaking the learning experience, giving 10 points. If 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 enhance learning engagement?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes creative features that boost educational value (e.g., 1. Interactive word animations 2. Voice recognition for pronunciation practice 3. Collaborative learning modes 4. Adaptive storytelling with vocabulary). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented that enhances learning outcomes (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant or inappropriate features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check for three types of issues: 1. Redundant implementation of similar learning functions 2. Features inappropriate for third-graders (complex interfaces, advanced concepts) 3. Distracting elements that interfere with learning focus (excessive animations, irrelevant games). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core learning functions are compromised by inappropriate content.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separating game logic/UI/data layers), code organization suitable for educational software, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if code structure is chaotic or lacks educational software best practices; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points if the codebase is not easily extensible for additional vocabulary sets. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet child-friendly educational standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows child-centered educational principles: 1) Age-appropriate color schemes (bright, engaging, high contrast) 2) Large, easily clickable interface elements (minimum 44px touch targets) 3) Clear visual hierarchy with educational focus 4) Consistent iconography and navigation patterns. Deduct 3 points for each confusing interface element, 5 points for inappropriate color choices, and 5 points for cluttered educational content layout.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Are the interactions smooth and educationally effective?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactive elements support effective learning: 1) Immediate feedback on correct/incorrect answers ≤ 200ms 2) Smooth transitions that don't distract from learning (200-400ms) 3) Clear visual and audio cues for educational progress 4) Intuitive gesture/click patterns for young users. Deduct 5 points for each confusing interaction pattern, 3 points for delayed feedback that breaks learning flow, and 5 points for difficult-to-use educational controls.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/game_development-casual/wechat-mini-program-family-social-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1050,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable. I want to develop a WeChat mini program with the following features: users can create coins to join families, wear family emblems, publish photos and text which can be commented on, and implement a real-time family activity ranking board. The activity level can be increased through online time, number of comments, published content, etc. Please refine and optimize these requirements, and provide the relevant development process and program code. In addition to the above, add a game module where players can earn points for rankings by playing games.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the user family system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a complete family system including: creating families, joining families, family emblem customization, and member management. Check if the system includes permissions hierarchy (admin/member), invitation mechanisms, and family statistics. Score 0 if the core family functions are missing, 5 if only basic family creation and joining is implemented, and 10 if the system includes complete family management with role-based permissions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the social content publishing and interaction features functional?",
-      "description": "Review if the code properly implements content publishing (photos and text), comment system, and content management. Check for image compression, content filtering mechanisms, and proper database structures. Deduct 3 points if media upload lacks progress indicators, 3 points if there's no content moderation mechanism, and 4 points if comments lack pagination or proper notification systems. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the activity ranking system properly designed and implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the activity ranking system calculates and updates scores based on multiple metrics (online time, comments, content publishing) accurately. Evaluate if real-time updates are implemented using cloud functions or WebSocket, and if the system includes anti-cheating mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if the ranking algorithm is simplistic or easily exploitable, and 5 points if there's no real-time update mechanism. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the game module for earning ranking points properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of the game module, examining if it includes proper game mechanics, score tracking, and integration with the ranking system. Check for multiple game options, difficulty levels, and anti-cheating measures. Deduct 4 points if games are too simple (lacking engagement), 3 points if there's no progression system, and 3 points if score synchronization with the ranking system is unreliable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, user operation errors, server downtime, 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. AR family emblem display 2. Voice commentary for content 3. Family-themed interactive stickers 4. Seasonal family event systems). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple notification systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to family/social system (e.g., unnecessary utility tools) 3. Heavy animations or effects that affect performance on limited mobile devices. 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 business logic/UI/network layers), appropriate use of WeChat mini program framework patterns, and code maintenance considerations. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no error logging or monitoring implementation. 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 mini program design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching aligned with WeChat's design language 2) Proper layout spacing respecting safe areas on different devices 3) Professional typographic hierarchy with clear readability on small screens. Deduct 3 points for each instance of poor tap target sizing, 5 points for non-standard component usage, and 5 points for layouts that break on different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to WeChat mini program best practices: 1) Response to user input within 100ms 2) Proper loading states for network operations 3) Smooth transitions between pages and tabs 4) Optimized rendering performance for list views. Deduct 3 points for each janky scrolling implementation, 4 points for missing loading indicators during network operations, and 3 points for abrupt page transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-casual/wechat-mini-program-snake-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 956,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable and can be demonstrated. Create executable code for a WeChat mini-program version of the Snake game.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core Snake game logic fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code accurately implements the snake movement mechanics, collision detection (with walls, self, and food), and score tracking. Score 0 if the core game logic is missing, 5 if only basic movement is implemented, and 10 if it includes variable speed levels, different food types, and proper game state management (start, pause, game over).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the WeChat mini-program framework correctly utilized?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly uses the WeChat mini-program lifecycle hooks (onLoad, onReady, onShow, onHide), page routing, and follows the MINA framework architecture (app.js, pages structure, etc.). Deduct 5 points if app.json configuration is incomplete, 3 points if global state management is improperly handled, and 5 points if page routing is missing or incorrect. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the game rendering optimized for the WeChat mini-program environment?",
-      "description": "Check whether the rendering uses canvas for smooth gameplay (required for games) rather than slow WXML DOM manipulation. Assess whether requestAnimationFrame or wx.createAnimation is properly used for animation frames. Deduct 5 points if rendering causes visible performance issues, 3 points if memory leak occurs during long gameplay. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are WeChat mini-program specific features integrated?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the game leverages WeChat-specific features like local storage for high scores, share functionality, user avatars, or leaderboards using cloud functions. Score 0 if no WeChat-specific features are used, 5 if only basic storage is implemented, and 10 if multiple platform-specific features are properly integrated and enhance the gaming experience.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as application suspension/resumption, unexpected user inputs, device rotation, 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. Power-ups and special foods 2. Multiplayer mode using WeChat's real-time communication 3. Customizable snake skins). 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 game loop implementations) 2. Function modules unrelated to the snake game (e.g., unnecessary mini-program pages) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating game logic/view/controller layers), proper commenting, and mini-program best practices. 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 project structure doesn't follow WeChat mini-program conventions. 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 mobile game design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout for different device sizes (responsive design) 3) Professional UI elements (buttons, score displays, game over screens). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for interfaces that don't respect the safe areas on modern devices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the touch controls are responsive and intuitive for a mobile snake game: 1) Touch response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Intuitive swipe or button controls for changing direction 3) Proper visual feedback for player actions. Deduct 5 points for input lag exceeding 150ms, 3 points for unnatural snake movement animations, and 5 points for controls that are difficult to use with one hand. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/game_development-casual/wechat-mini-program-swipe-data-navigation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 883,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. Help me write a WeChat Mini Program that implements requesting the next data item when swiping right and the previous data item when swiping left.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the swipe gesture detection properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the code correctly implements touch event handling (touchStart, touchMove, touchEnd) with proper threshold calculation for horizontal swipes. Check if direction detection differentiates left/right swipes accurately with at least 30px threshold. Score 0 if gesture detection is missing, 5 if basic implementation exists but edge cases aren't handled, 10 if fully implemented with velocity detection and proper cancellation of vertical scrolls.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the data pagination mechanism correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of data fetching logic for previous/next items. Check if proper state management prevents duplicate requests and handles boundary conditions (first/last item). Verify if caching is implemented to avoid redundant network requests. Deduct 5 points if boundary detection is missing, 3 points if there's no loading state handling. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the UI transition animation smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Assess the animation implementation for transitions between data items. Verify if the code uses proper wxs/animation modules for smooth performance. Check if animations follow the swipe direction (slide left/right) with proper easing functions. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for inconsistent behavior, and 5 points if animations are missing entirely. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there proper error handling and empty state management?",
-      "description": "Check how the code handles errors during data fetching (network issues, API failures) and empty data scenarios. Verify if user-friendly feedback is provided and retry mechanisms exist. Score 0 if no error handling exists, 5 if basic error messages are shown but no recovery options, and 10 if comprehensive error handling with graceful fallbacks and retry options are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as rapid swiping, network interruption, boundary conditions, 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. Pull-to-refresh with custom animation 2. Haptic feedback on swipe 3. Gesture customization options 4. Smart preloading of adjacent data). 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 gesture detection systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the swipe functionality (e.g., unnecessary utility functions) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that impact swipe responsiveness). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating UI/logic/data layers), use of WeChat Mini Program best practices, and proper component encapsulation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if mini program lifecycle methods are misused. 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 WeChat Mini Program design principles: 1) Consistent with WeChat's visual language 2) Proper layout spacing and component sizing 3) Professional typography system aligned with WeChat standards. Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent visual element, 5 points for a non-native look and feel, and 5 points for chaotic layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the swipe interactions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Swipe response time ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 200-400ms 3) Clear visual indicators for swipe direction/progress. Deduct 5 points for each laggy swipe response, 3 points for jittery animations during transitions, and 5 points for lack of visual feedback during swipes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/game_development-casual/wechat-mini-program-t-rex-running-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1003,
-  "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 purposes. Write a WeChat Mini Program similar to Google's T-Rex running game.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core game mechanism fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core T-Rex running game mechanics, including the main character's jump action, obstacle generation and movement, collision detection, score tracking, and game speed progression. Score 0 if the core gameplay is missing, 5 if only basic jumping and obstacles are implemented, and 10 if all features from the original T-Rex game (including ducking, night mode transitions, etc.) are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Mini Program structure correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code follows WeChat Mini Program specifications with proper file structure (app.js, app.json, app.wxss, pages structure), correct usage of WXML and WXSS instead of HTML/CSS, and appropriate implementation of the Mini Program lifecycle events. Deduct 5 points if the basic structure is incorrect, 3 points if lifecycle methods are misused, and 2 points if configuration files are incomplete. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the game canvas rendering optimized for Mini Program environment?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the game uses wx.createCanvas or wx.createContext appropriately, implements proper frame rate management (using wx.requestAnimationFrame instead of setInterval), and handles device pixel ratio for different screen resolutions. Check if memory usage is optimized through object pooling and proper garbage collection. Deduct 3 points for each performance anti-pattern. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are WeChat Mini Program specific features utilized?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code leverages Mini Program specific capabilities like touch events instead of keyboard inputs, vibration feedback on collision, cloud storage for high scores, and share functionality. Examine if the program handles app suspension and resumption correctly. Deduct 2 points for each missed opportunity to integrate WeChat-specific features. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as device rotation, Mini Program being switched to background, memory constraints, low battery mode, 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. WeChat friend leaderboards 2. Character customization 3. Alternative game modes 4. Integration with WeChat user profile). 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 jump mechanics coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the game (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., complex animations 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 game logic/view layers), proper component encapsulation, and adherence to Mini Program best practices. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the project structure is disorganized or inconsistent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles and Mini Program UI guidelines: 1) Harmonious color matching (maintaining the original game's minimalist style while fitting WeChat's aesthetic) 2) Proper layout for both horizontal and vertical orientations 3) Professional font system (readable text at various sizes). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for inconsistent styling, and 5 points for poor adaptation to different screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the game controls and animations respond appropriately to touch inputs: 1) Jump response delay ≤ 50ms 2) Consistent frame rate without stuttering (ideally 60fps) 3) Clear visual feedback for all interactions. Deduct 5 points for input lag exceeding 100ms, 3 points for inconsistent frame rates, and 5 points for unclear collision feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Casual",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}