@getollie/cli 0.0.4 → 0.2.0

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/replicate-element-plus-vue3-typescript-no-dependencies.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1211,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Completely replicate Element Plus based on Vue3 and TypeScript, without depending on any third-party libraries.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is there a complete implementation of the core Element Plus component structure?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the core components of Element Plus including Button, Form, Table, Dialog, Notification, etc. Score 0 if less than 10 basic components are implemented, 5 if at least 20 components with basic functionality are implemented, and 10 if more than 30 components with full functionality matching Element Plus specifications are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Vue3 Composition API correctly utilized?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation properly leverages Vue3's Composition API features (ref, reactive, computed, watch, etc.) and lifecycle hooks. Deduct 5 points if still primarily using Options API, 3 points if Composition API is used but with anti-patterns (such as reactive wrapping of already reactive objects). Check if proper component setup() patterns and <script setup> syntax is utilized where appropriate.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is TypeScript properly implemented throughout the codebase?",
-      "description": "Assess the TypeScript implementation quality including proper interfaces, types, generics, and type guards. Check for strict typing with proper definition files. Deduct 5 points if any component lacks type definitions, 3 points if type 'any' is overused, and 5 points if TypeScript configurations lack strictness. Full score requires comprehensive typing system similar to original Element Plus.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a comprehensive theming and customization system?",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation includes Element Plus's CSS variable-based theming system, allowing for global theme configuration and component-level customization. Verify if SCSS/CSS preprocessing is handled correctly for theming. Deduct 5 points if the theme system is missing, 3 points if it's implemented but not configurable at runtime, and 2 points if it doesn't support dark mode.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid props, edge cases in component states, error boundaries, etc.) and provide friendly error handling. Check if components gracefully handle unexpected input types, empty states, and overflowing content. Deduct 3 points for each critical robustness issue found (maximum 10 points deduction).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features beyond Element Plus functionality that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Advanced state persistence 2. Enhanced accessibility beyond original implementation 3. Performance optimizations like virtual scrolling). 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 popup mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to UI components (e.g., built-in state management) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating component logic/view/utils), test coverage, and build process. Check if components are properly decoupled and follow a consistent file structure. 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 there's no proper build configuration. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the component styling exactly matches Element Plus specifications: 1) Consistent spacing and sizing systems 2) Correct color palette implementation 3) Typography system matches Element Plus. Compare screenshots of rendered components with original Element Plus. Deduct 3 points for each visually inconsistent component, 5 points for incorrect spacing systems, and 5 points for mismatched color variables. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether interactive components match Element Plus behavior: 1) Transitions/animations match duration and easing of originals 2) Hover/focus states properly implemented 3) Mobile touch interactions properly supported. Deduct 5 points for each animation that differs significantly from Element Plus, 3 points for missing interactive states, and 5 points for components that don't work properly on touch devices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/report-chart-configuration-page-with-custom-metrics.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 721,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Please regenerate the front-end for the report and chart configuration page. Requirements: 1) Include custom metrics, custom reports, and custom charts. Please refer to other successful cases. I want to implement a complex statistical report. After configuration is complete, it should be possible to see the configuration style of the report.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the custom metrics configuration functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code provides a complete custom metrics definition interface, including metric name, data source, calculation formula, filtering conditions, and aggregation methods. Check if the interface supports complex metric composition (derived metrics based on other metrics). Score 0 if the core metric definition logic is missing, 5 if only basic metric definition is available, and 10 if advanced features like conditional metrics and calculated fields are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the custom reports configuration system comprehensively designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the report configuration includes essential elements such as title, description, time range selector, refresh intervals, sharing permissions, and export options. Check if the code implements template selection, layout customization, and conditional formatting rules. Deduct 5 points if saved report states cannot be restored, and 3 points if dynamic filtering is not available. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the custom charts visualization system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code supports a variety of chart types (at minimum: line, bar, pie, scatter, table, heatmap) with appropriate configuration options for each type. Verify that chart customization includes axis labels, legends, tooltips, color schemes, and interactive features (zoom, drill-down, etc.). Deduct 5 points if responsive design for different screen sizes is missing, and 3 points if accessibility features are not considered. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the configuration preview/live update mechanism implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify whether the code provides real-time preview functionality as users configure their reports and charts. Check if configuration changes immediately reflect in the visualization without requiring page reloads. The implementation should include data caching mechanisms and optimized rendering to prevent performance issues. Give 10 points for seamless live updates with minimal latency, 5 points if updates require manual refresh, and 0 if preview functionality is missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid configurations, data loading failures, empty datasets, network interruptions, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-suggested visualizations based on data patterns 2. Natural language query to generate reports 3. Collaborative editing with change history). 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 configuration options (e.g., multiple ways to set the same property) 2. Function modules unrelated to reporting (e.g., unnecessary social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations in the configuration interface). 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 configuration logic/visualization rendering/data handling layers), component reusability, and state management approaches. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no clear separation between presentation and business logic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/report-overview-page-prototype.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1112,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate can be executed properly. As a product manager, you need to create a page prototype for a short report overview. The page should present the following information: user overview, product overview, resource overview, key work order indicators, key business indicators, service activation order overview, service order overview, fault order overview and other key statistical information, SLA degradation events statistics, and inspection abnormal events statistics. Please expand appropriately based on each display content and provide an HTML page.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the dashboard structure comprehensive and well-organized?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the HTML structure provides all 10 required sections: user overview, product overview, resource overview, key work order indicators, key business indicators, service activation order overview, service order overview, fault order overview, SLA degradation events statistics, and inspection abnormal events statistics. Each section should have clear headers and be logically organized in the page layout. Score 0 if fewer than 7 sections are implemented, 5 if 7-9 sections are present but poorly organized, and 10 if all 10 sections are implemented with logical grouping and clear visual hierarchy.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the data visualization appropriate for each content type?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements appropriate chart types for different data: line charts for trends, bar charts for comparisons, pie/donut charts for proportions, tables for detailed data, cards for KPIs, etc. Each visualization should match its data type and purpose. Deduct 2 points for each major section using inappropriate visualization types. Score 0 if most visualizations are inappropriate, 5 if basic visualizations are used but not optimized for data types, and 10 if all visualizations are appropriate and enhance data comprehension.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the dashboard interactive and provides drill-down capabilities?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes interactive elements like filters, date range selectors, tooltips on hover, and drill-down capabilities for deeper analysis. Evaluate if the interactions enhance data exploration. Score 0 if no interactive elements are present, 5 if basic interactions (like tooltips) exist but lack meaningful drill-down capabilities, and 10 if comprehensive interactive features are implemented with proper state management for user selections.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the dashboard provide data loading, refresh mechanisms, and error handling?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements proper data loading mechanisms (Ajax/Fetch), provides refresh capabilities (manual or automatic), displays loading states, and handles data loading errors gracefully. The implementation should include placeholders during loading and user-friendly error messages. Deduct 5 points if no loading states are shown, 3 points if error handling is missing, and 2 points if refresh functionality isn't implemented. 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 empty data sets, malformed data, browser compatibility issues, responsive layout breakpoints, 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. Real-time data updates with visual transitions 2. Cross-section data correlation highlighting 3. Customizable dashboard layout with drag-and-drop). 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 visualizations (e.g., multiple chart libraries used for similar charts) 2. Overcomplicated features unrelated to the dashboard purpose (e.g., unnecessary animations) 3. Heavy visual effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive transitions or 3D effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core dashboard functionality is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data/view/controller layers), code reusability for similar components, and build optimization. Deduct 5 points if global variables are excessively used or proper JavaScript patterns are not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimization measures are implemented (like efficient DOM manipulation). 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 dashboard design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching with a consistent color scheme 2) Proper layout spacing and grid system 3) Professional typography hierarchy (contrasting sizes for headers vs. data). Deduct 3 points for each inconsistent design element, 5 points for visually overwhelming information density, and 5 points for poor contrast that affects readability. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dashboard responsive and accessible?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the implementation works across different screen sizes and meets basic accessibility standards: 1) Responsive layout with appropriate breakpoints 2) Semantic HTML with proper ARIA attributes 3) Sufficient color contrast and keyboard navigation support. Deduct 5 points if the layout breaks on mobile or tablet views, 3 points for each major accessibility violation, and 5 points if screen readers cannot interpret the dashboard content properly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/residential-community-file-management-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 689,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration purposes.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. I will provide you with a software development requirement description, and you should generate project code based on these requirements. Strictly follow the rules to help users generate complete project code with clear and simple annotations, without outputting anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code, ensuring the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, don't omit any code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot execute or contains errors, regenerate it\n4. If the requirements include external API access or user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDevelop a residential community file management system for a property management company. Property staff can upload community-related files (such as announcements, maintenance records) through the frontend page, and homeowners can log in to view these files. The system should provide a file commenting feature, allowing homeowners to comment on files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the complete file management system architecture implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code establishes a full-stack architecture for file management, including upload/download functionality, file storage mechanisms, proper permissions control, and file metadata management. Score 0 if only partial components are implemented, 5 if basic functionality exists but lacks proper integration, and 10 if the system includes proper database schema, API endpoints, frontend-backend integration, and storage solutions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the user authentication and role-based access control system implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements separate authentication workflows for property staff and homeowners with appropriate role-based permissions. Property staff should have upload privileges while homeowners have view-only access. Examine if the authentication system includes secure password handling, session management, and token validation. Deduct 5 points if authorization checks are missing, 3 points if role separation is incomplete, and 2 points if session handling is insecure. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the file upload and management functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes proper file upload mechanisms with validation (file type restrictions, size limits), categorization capabilities, version control, and search functionality. Check if property staff can properly categorize uploads as announcements, maintenance records, etc. Deduct 3 points if file validation is missing, 3 points if categorization is not implemented, and 4 points if search functionality is absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the commenting system fully functional?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code implements a complete commenting system allowing homeowners to add, view, edit, and delete comments on files. Check if the system includes timestamps, user identification, and potentially nested replies. Evaluate if comment notifications are provided to relevant parties. Deduct 3 points if edit/delete functionality is missing, 3 points if user identification is inadequate, and 4 points if the system doesn't handle comment displays properly. 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 invalid file types, network interruption, user operation errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Real-time notification system for new uploads 2. Document preview functionality 3. Mobile responsiveness with offline access capability). 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 file upload methods with overlapping functionality) 2. Function modules unrelated to community management (e.g., a built-in game section) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when browsing files). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating data access/business logic/presentation layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/scheduling-application-mini-program-multi-people-multi-shifts.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1504,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and expert responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable and can be demonstrated. I want to design a scheduling application mini-program that can support multiple people and multiple types of shifts. Please provide the HTML implementation and instructions on how to use it.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the multi-person schedule management system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a complete scheduling system that allows adding, editing, and deleting multiple users and shift types. Check if it includes user management features (adding/removing users, assigning roles/permissions). Score 0 if core scheduling functionality is missing, 5 if only basic scheduling is implemented, and 10 if it includes comprehensive user management with different permission levels.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are multiple shift types supported with proper visualization?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code supports defining and displaying various shift types (morning/evening/night shifts, on-call, vacation, etc.) with distinct visual indicators (colors, icons, patterns). Check if shifts can be customized with properties like duration, priority, and constraints. Deduct 5 points if only fixed shift types are available, 3 points if visual differentiation is poor. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is conflict detection and resolution functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the system detects scheduling conflicts (double-booking, insufficient rest periods, exceeding working hour limits) and provides resolution methods. Verify if there are warnings for potential issues (approaching overtime, uneven distribution). Deduct 5 points if conflict detection is missing, 3 points if only basic detection without resolution options is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the calendar view implementation interactive and user-friendly?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the calendar supports multiple views (daily, weekly, monthly) with drag-and-drop functionality for schedule adjustments. Check if it includes features like zooming, filtering, and aggregated views. Deduct 5 points if only one view is available, 3 points if interactive features are limited. 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 invalid date inputs, overlapping shifts, concurrent schedule modifications, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted schedule optimization 2. Automatic fair distribution of undesirable shifts 3. Mobile notification system for schedule changes 4. Integration with external calendar 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 calendar libraries used simultaneously) 2. Function modules unrelated to scheduling (e.g., built-in messaging system that's not scheduling-related) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations or visual 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 UI components/state management/data services), use of appropriate design patterns, code reusability, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's tight coupling between components. 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 clear shift type differentiation 2) Proper layout spacing for calendar cells and control panels 3) Professional typography system with adequate text hierarchy. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for conflicting or confusing color schemes, and 5 points for poor information hierarchy. 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) Immediate visual feedback when adding/editing shifts 2) Smooth transitions between calendar views 3) Intuitive drag-and-drop interactions with appropriate animations. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for laggy transitions during view changes, and 5 points for unintuitive scheduling controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/school-academic-administration-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 505,
-  "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. Please design a school academic administration system that includes modules for student information management, teacher information management, course management, and grade management. The system should support functions like student course selection, teacher scheduling, grade entry and inquiry. Administrators should be able to set semester information, import student lists, assign homeroom teachers, etc. The system should also provide grade analysis functions, including class rankings, average score statistics, pass rate calculations, etc., and support generating various academic reports.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the student information management module fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes comprehensive student data models (with fields like student ID, name, gender, class, admission date, contact information) and CRUD operations. Check if the module supports batch imports, advanced search filtering, and student status tracking (active, graduated, suspended). Score 0 if basic student information storage is missing, 5 if only basic CRUD operations are implemented, and 10 if the module includes comprehensive student lifecycle management with data validation and privacy controls.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the teacher information management and scheduling system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements teacher profiles (including ID, name, department, qualifications, teaching subjects) and scheduling functionality. Check if the system handles teacher availability constraints, workload balancing, and conflict detection when assigning classes. Deduct 3 points if teacher qualification verification is missing, 3 points if scheduling conflicts aren't automatically detected, and 4 points if workload reports are not available. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the course management system complete and flexible?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements a robust course catalog with prerequisites, credit hours, classroom assignments, and enrollment caps. Check if the system handles course dependencies, scheduling across multiple semesters, and supports different course types (required/elective). Deduct 3 points if prerequisite checking is missing, 3 points if time conflict resolution isn't implemented, and 4 points if the system doesn't support curriculum planning across academic years. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the grade management and analysis functions comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements grade entry, verification workflows, and analysis tools. Check if the system calculates GPA, class rankings, grade distributions, and historical performance trends. Verify if it handles different grading schemes (percentage, letter grades, pass/fail). Deduct 3 points if grade verification workflows are missing, 3 points if analytical reports lack visualization, and 4 points if the system doesn't support customizable grading schemes. 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 duplicate entries, invalid inputs, concurrent data modifications, system crashes) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check for input validation, error handling, transaction management, and data integrity constraints. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered early warning system for at-risk students 2. Mobile app integration for real-time notifications 3. Interactive academic progress dashboards 4. Predictive analytics for course planning). 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 user management systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to academic administration (e.g., a built-in social networking platform) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary animations in data entry forms). 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 architectural patterns (such as MVC, layered architecture), code organization, database normalization, and security implementation. Check for proper authentication, authorization, audit logging, and input sanitization. Deduct 3 points if secure coding practices are missing; deduct 4 points if the database schema is poorly designed with redundancies; deduct 3 points if there's no separation between business logic and presentation. 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) Consistent UI components across modules 2) Clear visual hierarchy and information architecture 3) Responsive design for different devices 4) Accessible design for users with disabilities. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent UI elements, 3 points for poor information organization, 2 points for non-responsive layouts, and 2 points for accessibility issues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the system architecture scalable and maintainable?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the system architecture can handle growing data volumes and user numbers: 1) Database indexing and query optimization 2) Caching strategies for frequently accessed data 3) Modular design allowing feature extensions 4) API design for potential integrations. Deduct 3 points for lack of performance optimization, 3 points for monolithic architecture difficult to extend, 2 points for missing documentation, and 2 points for absence of testing frameworks. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/security-center-federated-learning-audit-tracker.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 842,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Security Center 3.7\n\n## Core Functional Modules:\n\n### Federated Learning Console\n- Participant Status Dashboard (Heartbeat Detection)\n- Encryption Protocol Performance Monitoring (e.g., Paillier encryption time consumption curves)\n\n### Audit Tracker\n- Operation Replay Function: Frame-by-frame playback of user operations along a timeline\n- Difference Highlighting: Such as parameter comparison before and after configuration changes",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Federated Learning Console fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the participant status dashboard accurately displays real-time heartbeat detection with proper connection state visualization. Check if encryption protocol performance monitoring includes comprehensive metrics display (Paillier encryption time curves, throughput graphs, error rates). Score 0 if dashboard lacks real-time updates, 5 if only basic status display is implemented, and 10 if complete monitoring with historical data analysis is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Audit Tracker operation replay function properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the frame-by-frame playback system includes precise timeline control, step-by-step operation reconstruction, and smooth playback/pause functionality. Check for operation filtering capabilities and timeline scrubbing. Deduct 5 points if playback lacks accuracy, 3 points if timeline navigation is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the difference highlighting system comprehensively designed?",
-      "description": "Assess whether parameter comparison functionality includes visual diff rendering, side-by-side comparison views, and change impact analysis. Check for color-coded modifications, expandable nested object comparisons, and export capabilities. Deduct 5 points if visual highlighting is poor, 3 points if complex nested changes aren't handled properly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the security center data architecture robust and scalable?",
-      "description": "Review whether the system implements proper data persistence, real-time synchronization, and efficient querying mechanisms for audit logs and federated learning metrics. Check for data encryption at rest, proper indexing strategies, and backup mechanisms. Deduct 5 points if data integrity isn't guaranteed, 3 points if query performance is suboptimal. Give 10 points if fully implemented with enterprise-grade security.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network timeouts, invalid data formats, concurrent access conflicts, encryption failures, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases in security-critical environments, 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 are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance security monitoring experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered anomaly detection alerts 2. Interactive 3D network topology visualization 3. Predictive performance analytics 4. Custom dashboard widgets). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar monitoring functions (e.g., multiple heartbeat detection mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to security monitoring (e.g., built-in games or entertainment features) 3. Fancy effects that impact dashboard performance (e.g., excessive animations on critical monitoring displays). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core security 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 monitoring logic/visualization/data layers), security best practices implementation, and automated testing coverage. Deduct 5 points if sensitive data handling violations are found or security patterns aren't followed; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points if no automated security testing is implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet enterprise security dashboard standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows enterprise dashboard principles: 1) Professional color scheme suitable for security monitoring (high contrast, accessibility compliant) 2) Information hierarchy with proper data density (critical alerts prominently displayed) 3) Consistent iconography and typography system (readable at various screen sizes). Deduct 3 points for each cluttered information panel, 5 points for poor color accessibility, and 5 points for inconsistent visual language. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Are the real-time updates and interactions responsive and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether real-time features meet monitoring system requirements: 1) Dashboard updates with minimal latency (<500ms for critical alerts) 2) Smooth transitions for data refresh without disrupting user focus 3) Intuitive drill-down interactions for detailed analysis. Deduct 5 points for each delayed critical notification, 3 points for jarring update animations, and 5 points for non-intuitive navigation between monitoring views. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/management_systems-frontend_backend_platforms/sensor-calibration-multi-page-gui.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1363,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for demonstration. I want to design a GUI for sensor calibration, such as camera intrinsic calibration, camera-to-LiDAR extrinsic calibration, and LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration, with each task on a separate page.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the multi-page GUI architecture implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a clean multi-page architecture with separate pages for camera intrinsic calibration, camera-to-LiDAR extrinsic calibration, and LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration. Check for proper navigation between pages, consistent layout framework, and state management across different calibration workflows. Score 0 if pages are not separated, 5 if basic page separation exists but with navigation issues, and 10 if a complete, smooth multi-page system is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the camera intrinsic calibration functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Review the implementation of camera intrinsic calibration features, including checkerboard pattern detection, multiple image collection interface, calibration parameter visualization, and reprojection error analysis. Check for essential operations like image upload/capture, automatic corner detection with visual feedback, and parameter output (focal length, principal point, distortion coefficients). Deduct 5 points if corner detection visualization is missing, 3 points if reprojection error analysis is absent, and 2 points if parameter export functionality is not provided. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the camera-to-LiDAR extrinsic calibration implementation comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess the camera-to-LiDAR calibration functionality, including point cloud and image visualization, feature correspondence selection, transformation matrix computation, and calibration quality evaluation. Check for interactive point selection in both modalities, visualization of projection results, and optimization workflow. Deduct 5 points if real-time visualization of registration results is missing, 3 points if error metrics are not displayed, and 2 points if the workflow doesn't allow for refinement iterations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the LiDAR-to-LiDAR calibration module, including point cloud loading and visualization, feature extraction for alignment, ICP or NDT algorithm implementation, and transformation validation. Check for interactive adjustment capabilities, multi-view visualization (top-down, side views), and quantitative alignment metrics. Deduct 5 points if point cloud visualization lacks proper controls (zoom, rotation, translation), 3 points if automatic alignment algorithms are missing, and 2 points if alignment quality metrics are not provided. 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 invalid image inputs, corrupt point cloud data, calibration failures, 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 calibration experience (e.g., 1. Real-time calibration quality visualization 2. Automatic calibration target detection 3. Calibration history comparison 4. AR visualization of sensor alignment). 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 calibration algorithms 2. Function modules unrelated to sensor calibration 3. Fancy visualization effects that adversely impact performance or usability. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core calibration 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 calibration algorithms/UI/data processing 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 suitable for technical applications 2) Proper layout spacing with clear separation between visualization and control areas 3) Professional font system with clear labeling of technical parameters. Deduct 3 points for cluttered calibration controls, 5 points for poor contrast that makes data hard to read, and 5 points for inconsistent layout across different calibration pages. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and intuitive for technical users?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interface provides appropriate interaction for sensor calibration: 1) Clear visual feedback during calibration steps 2) Intuitive controls for point selection and adjustment 3) Responsive visualization updates after parameter changes. Deduct 5 points for calibration operations without visual feedback, 3 points for laggy point cloud rendering during interaction, and 5 points for unintuitive calibration workflow that would confuse technical users. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Management Systems-Frontend/Backend Platforms",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}