@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/frontend-walking-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 287,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable for demonstration. Write a front-end program that simulates walking.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the walking animation physically accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the walking animation correctly implements biomechanical principles: leg swing motion, weight shifting, and proper stride length. Score 0 if there's no animation cycle, 5 if basic keyframes are implemented but movement looks unnatural, and 10 if the walking demonstrates a complete gait cycle with natural weight transfer and proper foot placement.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the character model properly constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the character model has appropriate joint articulation for walking (hip, knee, ankle joints with correct rotation constraints). Deduct 3 points if joints bend unnaturally, 5 points if the model lacks necessary articulation points, and 5 points if proportions are significantly distorted. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the walk cycle timing natural and adjustable?",
-      "description": "Review whether the animation timing follows natural human walking patterns (approximately 1-2 seconds per cycle) and whether speed can be adjusted dynamically. Score 0 if timing is fixed and unnatural, 5 if basic timing is implemented but lacks variability, and 10 if the animation includes configurable speed, acceleration/deceleration, and natural timing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the walking simulation include environmental interaction?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the walking character can interact with environmental elements (e.g., adjusting to terrain height differences, avoiding obstacles, responding to surface friction). Deduct 5 points if the character walks through obstacles, 3 points if terrain adaptation is missing, and 3 points if no surface interaction exists. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, browser compatibility issues, performance optimization for slower devices, etc.) and provide smooth degradation when needed. 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. User-controllable camera angles 2. Weather/lighting effects that affect walking style 3. Footprint/sound effects synchronized with steps). 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 animation functions 2. Function modules unrelated to walking simulation 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle 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 animation logic/rendering/user input layers), performance optimization, and code organization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no optimization for animation performance. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Clean visual presentation of the walking character 2) Proper contrast between character and background 3) Professional UI elements if present (controls, settings panels). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor contrast making it hard to see the animation, and 5 points for chaotic layout of controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and free of visual artifacts?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation runs at consistent frame rates (minimum 30fps) and transitions smoothly between animation phases. Check for: 1) No visible stuttering 2) Smooth transitions between animation cycles 3) No clipping or floating issues. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops, 3 points for jerky transitions between animation steps, and 5 points for persistent clipping issues. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/galton-board-program-html.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1720,
-  "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. Implement a Galton board program using HTML language.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Galton board physics simulation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the physics of ball movement through HTML/JavaScript, including gravity simulation, collision detection with pegs, and realistic bouncing mechanics. The ball should exhibit proper acceleration due to gravity and random deflection upon hitting pegs. Score 0 if no physics simulation is implemented, 5 if only basic gravity is present without proper collision mechanics, and 10 if realistic physics with proper momentum and random distribution is fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the visual representation of the Galton board properly constructed?",
-      "description": "Check whether the HTML/CSS implementation includes a proper triangular peg arrangement, collection bins at the bottom, and clear visual boundaries. The pegs should be arranged in a mathematically correct pattern that creates the binomial distribution. Deduct 5 points if the peg arrangement is irregular or mathematically incorrect, and 3 points if the visual proportions don't match a real Galton board. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the program demonstrate proper statistical distribution visualization?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation produces and displays the characteristic bell curve (normal distribution) when multiple balls are dropped. The program should include a histogram or counter showing ball accumulation in each bin, and ideally overlay the theoretical binomial distribution curve. Deduct 5 points if no statistical visualization is provided, and 3 points if the distribution doesn't converge to the expected bell curve after sufficient trials. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are interactive controls and animation features properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes user controls for dropping balls (single or multiple), adjusting simulation speed, resetting the board, and pausing/resuming animation. The ball animation should be smooth and visually appealing with proper frame rates. Deduct 5 points if no user controls are provided, and 3 points if animations are choppy or lack smooth transitions. Give 10 points if comprehensive controls with smooth animations are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as rapid clicking, browser performance limitations, edge cases in physics calculations, etc.) and provide friendly error handling or performance optimization. Code with strong robustness should prevent memory leaks during long simulations and handle browser compatibility issues. Give 10 points for excellent robustness, 5 points for average handling, and 0 points if no exception handling is present.",
-      "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 educational or entertainment value (e.g., 1. Real-time probability calculations and predictions 2. Customizable board parameters (peg count, ball size) 3. Sound effects synchronized with collisions 4. Historical data tracking and comparison). 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 ball drop mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to Galton board simulation (e.g., unrelated games or calculators) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex particle systems that slow down the physics). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core simulation functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics engine/rendering/UI control layers), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or object-oriented principles are not followed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if functions are not properly separated or commented. 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 contrast between pegs, balls, and background 2) Proper proportional relationships between board elements 3) Professional typography for labels and statistics (font size ≥ 14px, clear hierarchy). Deduct 3 points for each visually cluttered element, 5 points for poor color contrast that affects readability, and 5 points for disproportionate element sizing. 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) Ball animation frame rate ≥ 30fps for smooth motion 2) Interactive button response delay ≤ 100ms 3) Collision animations that provide clear visual feedback 4) Smooth statistical updates without jarring jumps. Deduct 5 points for each choppy animation sequence, 3 points for delayed user input response, and 5 points for unclear visual feedback during interactions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/html-celestial-motion-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 376,
-  "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 and displayable. Help me write an aesthetically pleasing HTML program for a celestial planetary motion simulation.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the celestial planetary motion simulation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements Keplerian orbital mechanics (elliptical orbits, varying velocity based on position) or simplified circular orbits with appropriate physics. Check if planets maintain proper relative sizes, distances, and orbital periods. Score 0 if planets don't move at all, 5 if motion exists but is physically inaccurate, and 10 if the simulation closely approximates real celestial mechanics.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the simulation include a comprehensive solar system representation?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes at least the Sun, Earth, and Moon with distinct visual representations. Additional points for including more planets, moons, asteroid belts, or other celestial bodies. Deduct 5 points if only basic shapes are used without textures/details, 3 points if scale relationships are severely distorted. Full score requires at least 5 distinct celestial bodies with appropriate characteristics.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the code implement interactive viewing controls?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether users can interact with the simulation through controls like zoom in/out, rotation, speed adjustment, or perspective changes. Deduct 5 points if no interaction exists, 3 points if interactions are limited to basic functions. Check if the camera transitions are smooth when changing viewpoints. The full score requires at least 3 distinct interaction methods with the simulation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there informational/educational content integrated with the simulation?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes features like planet labels, orbital paths visualization, distance indicators, or informational tooltips when hovering over planets. Deduct 5 points if no informational elements exist, 3 points if information is static and non-interactive. Full score requires both visual indicators and textual information that enhances the educational value of the simulation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resizing, different screen resolutions, varying performance capabilities, etc.) and provide graceful degradation or responsive design. Code with strong robustness should work across modern browsers and device types, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if major issues occur in standard scenarios, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lighting effects including shadows 2. Atmospheric glow around planets 3. Integration with astronomical real-time data 4. Star backgrounds with actual constellations). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant rendering methods that could impact performance 2. Feature bloat unrelated to celestial simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Excessive visual effects that detract from the core simulation. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculation/rendering/interaction layers), code organization, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance considerations are implemented for animation smoothness. 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 palette appropriate for space visualization (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional typography for labels and information (legible against the background). Deduct 3 points for each visually jarring element, 5 points for poor color choices that reduce visibility, and 5 points for cluttered or disorganized UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and visually pleasing?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the planetary motion animations are fluid and visually satisfying: 1) Consistent frame rate (target 60fps) 2) Smooth orbital transitions without jerky movements 3) Appropriate animation speed with options to adjust. Deduct 5 points for choppy animations, 3 points for visual artifacts during motion, and 5 points for fixed animation speeds that are either too fast or too slow to appreciate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/html-motion-planets-solar-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 289,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Pay attention to ensuring that the generated code is executable for display. Generate HTML code for the motion of planets in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system structure accurate?",
-      "description": "Check if the model correctly represents the planets in our solar system (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) with relatively accurate proportions and orbital positions. Pluto's inclusion is optional. Deduct 2 points for each missing major planet or severe size discrepancy. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the planetary orbital mechanics implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements Kepler's laws of planetary motion, with elliptical orbits, varying orbital speeds (faster when closer to the Sun), and proper orbital periods. Give 10 points for physically accurate simulation, 5 points for simplified but visually convincing orbits, and 0 points if planets move in perfect circles at constant speeds without any orbital physics.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the animation implement planetary rotation and revolution?",
-      "description": "Check if both planetary rotation (around their own axes) and revolution (around the Sun) are implemented with appropriate relative speeds. Each planet should have a distinct rotation period and orbital period based on astronomical data. Deduct 3 points if only revolution is implemented without rotation, and 5 points if the relative speeds are grossly inaccurate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are celestial textures and visual details implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the quality of visual representation including textures for planets, the Sun's glow effect, stars in the background, and other visual elements like rings for Saturn. Give 10 points for high-quality texturing and detailed celestial bodies, 5 points for basic colored spheres with minimal details, and 0 points for primitive shapes without any texture work.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, browser compatibility issues, different screen resolutions) and provide appropriate adaptations. 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. Interactive camera controls to view from different angles 2. Information panels for each planet 3. Time controls to speed up/slow down the simulation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple animation loops) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system visualization (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 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 rendering logic/physics calculation/UI components), performance optimization techniques, and maintainable code structure. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the animation is not optimized with requestAnimationFrame or if WebGL/Canvas is not properly utilized when appropriate. 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 (realistic space environment colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (appropriate scale of the solar system) 3) Professional labeling system (if planet labels are included). Deduct 3 points for unrealistic coloring, 5 points for inappropriate scaling that makes visualization unclear, and 5 points for poorly integrated UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation performs smoothly: 1) Consistent frame rate ≥ 30fps 2) Smooth transitions between camera perspectives (if implemented) 3) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points for stuttering animations, 3 points for delayed response to user interactions, and 5 points for animation glitches during planetary movements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/millikan-oil-drop-experiment-simulation-webpage.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1232,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Design a Millikan oil drop experiment simulation webpage that allows dynamic changes to the electric field voltage, oil drop height, and oil drop charge; the webpage needs to clearly display the height of two metal plates, with the lower metal plate's height defaulted to 0; the webpage should store multiple experiment records displayed in a list format.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core physics simulation of the Millikan oil drop experiment accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements the fundamental physics principles of the Millikan oil drop experiment, including the balance between gravitational and electrical forces. Verify that the simulation handles the following equations correctly: F_electric = qE (where q is charge, E is electric field), F_gravity = mg, and whether terminal velocity calculations incorporate air resistance/viscosity. Score 0 if the physics model is incorrect, 5 if basic forces are implemented but with simplifications, and 10 if the complete physics model including air resistance is accurately implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the adjustable parameters (electric field voltage, oil drop height, oil drop charge) properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the interface provides intuitive controls for adjusting the three key parameters. Check if voltage changes appropriately affect the electric field strength and consequently the oil drop movement. Verify that changing the initial drop height correctly repositions the drop, and that modifying the charge value affects the drop's response to the electric field. Deduct 3 points if any parameter cannot be adjusted, 2 points if adjustments don't immediately reflect in the simulation, and 2 points if parameter ranges are unrealistic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the visualization of the experimental setup correctly displayed?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the webpage clearly shows two metal plates with correct height representation, with the lower plate properly set at height 0. Check if the oil drop is visibly positioned between the plates and its movement is smooth and visually traceable. Verify whether the electric field is visually indicated (e.g., with field lines or color gradients). Deduct 5 points if the metal plates are not clearly defined, 3 points if the relative positioning is incorrect, and 3 points if there's no visual indication of the electric field direction. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the experiment record storage and display functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code successfully stores multiple experiment records and displays them in a list format. Verify if each record captures all relevant experimental parameters (voltage, drop charge, initial height) and outcomes (terminal velocity, balance point). Assess whether the records remain available after page refresh using local storage. Deduct 3 points if record persistence isn't implemented, 3 points if the list display is cluttered or hard to read, and 3 points if records lack timestamps or unique identifiers. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as extreme parameter inputs, browser compatibility issues, mobile responsiveness) 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 graphing of drop movement 2. Physics calculation formulas displayed alongside simulation 3. Comparison tool between experimental and theoretical 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 ways to reset the experiment) 2. Function modules unrelated to the Millikan experiment (e.g., unrelated animations or calculators) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., unnecessary 3D effects that slow down the simulation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics engine/view/data management 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 for the experiment process. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual jitter during oil drop movement, and 5 points for hard-to-find parameter controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/moon-rotation-simulation-frontend-program.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 214,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Ensure the code you produce is executable for display. Write a frontend program that simulates the moon's rotation.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the moon rotation simulation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Examine if the code correctly implements orbital mechanics for the moon's rotation, including proper axis tilt (5.14°), accurate rotation period (27.3 days), and realistic lunar libration effect. Score 0 if the rotation is static or inaccurate, 5 if basic rotation is implemented but lacks precision in orbital mechanics, and 10 if the simulation is astronomically accurate.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the simulation include proper visual representation of the moon?",
-      "description": "Check if the moon is visually represented with accurate textures showing craters, maria, and highlands. The texture mapping should wrap correctly on a sphere with proper lighting conditions to show the moon phases. Deduct 5 points if the texture is low resolution or unrealistic, 3 points if the lighting model doesn't accurately show phases, and 2 points if the surface details are missing. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the Earth-Moon system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify if the simulation includes the Earth and shows the correct spatial relationship between Earth and Moon (average distance ratio and size ratio). The simulation should show how the moon orbits the Earth while rotating on its axis. Deduct 5 points if the Earth is missing, 3 points if the distance/size proportions are dramatically wrong, and 2 points if the orbital mechanics aren't synchronized with rotation. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there an interactive user control system?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether users can control the simulation through features like zoom, rotation speed adjustment, time controls (pause/play/fast-forward), and camera angle changes. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control, and 2 points if the controls are implemented but not intuitive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, performance throttling, texture loading 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 experience (e.g., 1. Real-time phase indicator with dates 2. Ability to view from different celestial perspectives 3. Information overlay about moon features when hovering). 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 camera controls doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to moon simulation (e.g., unrelated animations) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects that slow down the simulation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating rendering logic/physics calculation/user interaction layers), code organization, 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 there's no performance optimization for smooth animation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Clean starfield or space background that doesn't distract from the main simulation 2) Proper layout spacing for controls and information panels 3) Professional font system for any displayed data or controls. Deduct 3 points for each visually distracting element, 5 points for poorly contrasting color combinations that hinder visibility, and 5 points for chaotic UI layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the rendering and animation smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation maintains a consistent frame rate (60fps) without stuttering, even during user interactions. Check if lighting transitions are smooth when showing moon phases. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops, 3 points for jerky rotation or movement, and 5 points for sudden visual glitches during animations or transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/simulate-passenger-station-boarding-time.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1443,
-  "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 help me write a small program that simulates the walking process of passengers from arriving at a station to boarding a vehicle, and outputs the time passengers spend at the station.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the passenger arrival simulation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements passenger arrival patterns (random, scheduled, or based on statistical distributions). Check if arrival rates vary by time of day and if the simulation handles peak/off-peak scenarios. Score 0 if arrival logic is missing, 5 if only basic constant arrival rate is implemented, and 10 if realistic arrival patterns with variability are fully modeled.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the station navigation and passenger movement logic complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code models passenger movement through the station (entry, ticketing, security, waiting areas, platforms). Check if the model accounts for walking speeds, congestion effects, and path-finding algorithms. Deduct 5 points if spatial modeling is oversimplified, and 3 points if passenger behaviors like stopping at information boards are not implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Does the program implement a comprehensive boarding process?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes queuing strategies, boarding priorities (e.g., elderly, passengers with special needs), and vehicle capacity constraints. Verify if the simulation handles scenarios like full vehicles or missed connections. Score 0 if boarding logic is missing, 5 if only basic boarding is implemented, and 10 if it includes realistic boarding behaviors including priority boarding and capacity management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the time tracking and reporting functionality comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the program correctly tracks and reports time metrics (total waiting time, time spent at different station areas, boarding time). Check if the statistics are properly aggregated and if the analysis provides meaningful insights (averages, percentiles, outliers). Deduct 5 points if only total time is reported without breakdowns, and 3 points if time precision is inadequate. 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 extremely high passenger volumes, zero passengers, service disruptions, etc.) and provide appropriate error handling. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle 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 simulation (e.g., 1. Visual real-time station heatmap 2. Predictive analytics for station crowding 3. What-if scenario testing). 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 time calculation methods) 2. Function modules unrelated to passenger flow simulation (e.g., unnecessary weather simulation) 3. Overly complex algorithms that don't improve accuracy. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation 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 passenger logic/station model/time management/reporting), unit test coverage, and parameter configuration flexibility. 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 simulation parameters cannot be easily modified. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the visualization (if any) meet professional standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether any visualization components follow good design principles: 1) Clear representation of passenger flow 2) Proper use of color to indicate congestion levels 3) Appropriate labeling and legends. Deduct 3 points for cluttered visuals, 5 points for misleading data representation, and 5 points for poorly scaled graphics. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the simulation output clear, informative and actionable?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the output data and reports provide meaningful insights: 1) Clear statistics on waiting times 2) Identification of bottlenecks in the passenger journey 3) Comparison of actual vs. expected transit times. Deduct 5 points for raw data without analysis, 3 points for missing visualization of key metrics, and 5 points for outputs that don't allow for decision-making improvements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-celestial-movement-frontend-code.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 251,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. Help me generate a frontend program code for a solar celestial movement.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system celestial body model correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements celestial bodies with proper orbital mechanics calculations. Check for correct representation of planets, moons, and the sun with proportional sizes and realistic textures. Score 0 if celestial bodies are missing, 5 if basic shapes exist but lack details, and 10 if the model includes accurate planetary characteristics (size ratios, textures, axial tilts).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are orbital paths and celestial movements scientifically accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the orbital calculations follow Kepler's laws with proper elliptical paths and varying orbital velocities. Verify that planets rotate on their axes while orbiting the sun, and moons correctly orbit their planets. Deduct 5 points if orbits are perfectly circular (unrealistic), 3 points if orbital speeds are constant (not following Kepler's second law), and 2 points if axial rotations are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there a time control system for the solar system simulation?",
-      "description": "Check for implementation of time controls like play/pause, speed adjustment (faster/slower), and time jumping capabilities. Ensure that relative orbital periods are maintained when speed is adjusted. Deduct 5 points if only play/pause exists without speed control, 3 points if the time scale is fixed, and 2 points if there's no visual indicator of the current time scale. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there an interactive camera/viewpoint control system?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether users can change perspectives (zoom in/out, pan, rotate view), switch focus between different celestial bodies, or choose preset viewpoints (e.g., from Earth, top-down view). Deduct 5 points if only basic zoom is implemented, 3 points if rotation controls are unintuitive, and 5 points if changing focus between planets isn't possible. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, browser compatibility issues, performance degradation on slower devices) and provide graceful fallbacks or adjustments. Code with strong robustness should adapt to different screen sizes, maintain consistent frame rates by adjusting detail levels, and handle WebGL/Canvas API failures. Give 10 points for excellent robustness, 5 points for average handling, and 0 points if these edge cases aren't addressed.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lighting effects with shadows 2. Comet or asteroid simulation 3. Space events like solar flares or eclipses 4. Interactive information panels with astronomical 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 rendering methods 2. Function modules unrelated to celestial movements (e.g., an unnecessary audio player) 3. Excessive visual effects that significantly impact performance (e.g., too many particle systems). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculations from rendering logic, reusable celestial body components), code organization patterns, and performance optimization techniques. 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 no performance optimization strategies are implemented (e.g., object pooling, LOD). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional astronomical visualization standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows professional astronomical visualization principles: 1) Scientific color schemes for celestial bodies 2) Proper scale indicators or reference grid 3) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the main view. Deduct 3 points for each visually inaccurate celestial representation, 5 points for unrealistic space background (e.g., bright blue space), and 5 points for obtrusive UI elements that block important parts of the simulation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation and interaction conform to astronomical visualization standards: 1) Consistent frame rate ≥30fps 2) Smooth transitions when changing viewpoints 3) Responsive controls with appropriate momentum/inertia effects for camera movement. Deduct 5 points for stuttering animations, 3 points for abrupt camera transitions, and 5 points for delayed response to user input. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}