@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.0

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/english-teacher-word-wheel-web-code.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 260,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code whenever possible. I am an English teacher and need you to create a word wheel using web code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the word wheel core functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a functional word wheel through HTML/CSS/JavaScript, including circular letter arrangement, center letter(s), word formation validation, and scoring system. Score 0 if basic wheel structure is missing, 5 if only static display is implemented, and 10 if complete interactive word formation with validation is included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the word validation and dictionary system properly integrated?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes a comprehensive word validation system with dictionary lookup, duplicate word prevention, and minimum word length requirements. Two-way validation between user input and dictionary database is required. Deduct 5 points if word validation is missing, and 3 points if duplicate detection is not handled. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the educational progression and difficulty system designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the word wheel includes progressive difficulty levels, hints system, and educational feedback mechanisms suitable for English teaching. Check for features like word definitions, usage examples, or difficulty categorization. Deduct 5 points if no educational features are present, and 3 points if progression system is basic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the complete game state management and persistence implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes complete game state management, including score tracking, progress saving, session management, and game statistics for educational assessment. Deduct 5 points if state persistence is not implemented, and 3 points if scoring system is missing. Give 10 points if fully implemented with educational tracking features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid letter combinations, network interruption for dictionary lookup, user input 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 educational features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the learning experience (e.g., 1. Pronunciation audio for found words 2. Word etymology or root analysis 3. Adaptive difficulty based on student performance 4. Collaborative word finding modes). Add 3 points for each practical innovative educational feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple scoring systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to word learning (e.g., unrelated mini-games) 3. Fancy effects that affect educational focus (e.g., distracting animations during word formation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core educational functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating game logic/UI/dictionary layers), code organization, and maintainability for educational software. 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 code structure is not suitable for educational customization. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet educational software standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows educational interface principles: 1) Clear, readable typography suitable for students (font size ≥ 16px, high contrast) 2) Intuitive color coding for educational feedback (correct/incorrect states) 3) Accessible design following WCAG guidelines 4) Clean layout that focuses attention on learning content. Deduct 3 points for each accessibility issue, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for confusing educational interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the interactive experience smooth and educationally appropriate?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactive elements support effective learning: 1) Immediate feedback for word formation attempts ≤ 200ms 2) Clear visual indicators for valid/invalid selections 3) Smooth letter selection and word building process 4) Appropriate audio-visual feedback for educational reinforcement. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without proper feedback, 3 points for confusing selection states, and 5 points for interactions that hinder the learning flow. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/english-vocabulary-flashcards-for-memorization.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 356,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for display purposes. Identify the content in the file, and based on the English words and translations, create an HTML page for word flashcards to assist with vocabulary memorization.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the basic flashcard structure implemented correctly?",
-      "description": "Check if the HTML structure includes front and back sides of flashcards with proper vocabulary display. Look for word/translation pairs being properly separated and styled. Score 0 if basic card structure is missing, 5 if basic structure exists but lacks proper separation of front/back sides, and 10 if flashcards properly display both words and translations with clear visual distinction.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is there a working flashcard flip mechanism?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes JavaScript functionality to flip cards and reveal translations. The mechanism should respond to user interaction (click/tap) with smooth transitions. Deduct 5 points if the flip occurs without animation, 3 points if the flip is not optimized for mobile devices. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there a vocabulary management system?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code provides methods to add, edit, remove, or organize vocabulary items. Look for data structures that properly store word pairs and allow for persistence (localStorage or similar). Deduct 5 points if there's no way to add new words, 3 points if editing existing items isn't supported. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are there learning optimization features implemented?",
-      "description": "Check for features that enhance learning effectiveness such as spaced repetition algorithms, difficulty tracking, progress visualization, or review scheduling. Score 0 if no learning features exist, 5 if basic revisiting mechanism is present, 10 if a comprehensive learning system that adapts to user progress is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as empty vocabulary list, invalid inputs, connection issues for online dictionaries) 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. Audio pronunciation integration 2. Images associated with vocabulary 3. Quiz mode or gamification elements). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to display definitions) 2. Function modules unrelated to vocabulary learning (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 UI components/data management/user interaction), code reuse, and maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global variables are overused; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there's no separation between data 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) 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) Card flip animation between 300-500ms 2) Clear visual cues for interactive elements 3) Consistent feedback for user actions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jumpy animations, and 5 points for hard-to-recognize interactive elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/english-word-quiz-program-elementary-grades.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1649,
-  "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. Create a simple English word quiz program that covers all the new vocabulary from elementary grades 1-6 (Hebei Education Edition), including translations, phonetic symbols, and pronunciation.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the vocabulary database comprehensively implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code includes a complete vocabulary database covering grades 1-6 (Hebei Education Edition), with each word containing English spelling, Chinese translation, phonetic symbols, and pronunciation files. Check if the vocabulary is properly categorized by grade levels and topics. Score 0 if vocabulary data is missing or incomplete, 5 if only basic words are included without proper categorization, and 10 if all grade-level vocabulary is comprehensively organized with complete metadata.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the quiz modes and question types diversified?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the program implements multiple quiz formats including English-to-Chinese translation, Chinese-to-English translation, phonetic symbol recognition, spelling completion, and listening comprehension. Check if difficulty progression is implemented and adaptive question selection based on user performance exists. Deduct 3 points if less than 4 question types are implemented, deduct 5 points if no difficulty adaptation mechanism exists. Full score requires at least 5 different quiz modes with intelligent question generation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the pronunciation and phonetic system accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes accurate phonetic symbol display (IPA format) and high-quality pronunciation playback functionality. Evaluate if the pronunciation uses native speaker audio or high-quality TTS, and whether phonetic symbols are properly rendered with correct fonts. Deduct 5 points if pronunciation quality is poor or phonetic symbols are incorrectly displayed, deduct 3 points if audio loading is slow (>2 seconds). Full score requires crystal-clear pronunciation and perfectly formatted phonetic symbols.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the learning progress tracking and analytics system complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the program implements comprehensive progress tracking including accuracy rates, learning streaks, weak word identification, and performance analytics by grade/topic. Check if data persistence is implemented with local storage or database integration. Deduct 5 points if no progress tracking exists, deduct 3 points if data cannot be saved between sessions, deduct 2 points if analytics are basic without actionable insights. Full score requires detailed learning analytics with visual progress reports.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as missing audio files, network interruption, invalid user input, browser compatibility issues, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases like corrupted data, audio playback failures, and unexpected user interactions, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the learning experience (e.g., 1. Gamification elements like points/badges/leaderboards 2. Speech recognition for pronunciation practice 3. Spaced repetition algorithm 4. Interactive word games/mini-games 5. Social features for competition). Add 2 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points). Features must be functional and add genuine educational value.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple scoring systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to vocabulary learning (e.g., built-in calculator or unrelated games) 3. Overly complex animations that distract from learning. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core learning functions are interfered with by redundant code or if the interface becomes cluttered.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating quiz logic/vocabulary data/UI components), code organization, and maintainability. Check for proper separation of concerns, reusable components, and clean architecture. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if code is monolithic without proper structure; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 3 points if naming conventions are inconsistent. The full score requires clean, well-organized, and maintainable code structure.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet educational software standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design is child-friendly and educationally appropriate: 1) Clear, readable fonts suitable for young learners (minimum 16px for primary content) 2) Intuitive navigation with large, easily clickable buttons 3) Appropriate color scheme that aids learning without causing eye strain 4) Proper information hierarchy and layout spacing. Deduct 3 points for each confusing interface element, 5 points for poor readability, and 5 points for non-intuitive navigation. The full score requires a polished, professional educational interface.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the user interaction smooth and educationally effective?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions support effective learning: 1) Immediate feedback on answers (≤200ms response time) 2) Clear visual/audio cues for correct/incorrect responses 3) Smooth transitions between questions (300-500ms) 4) Intuitive input methods for different question types 5) Proper pacing that allows for learning without rushing. Deduct 5 points for each delayed or missing feedback, 3 points for confusing interaction patterns, and 5 points for poor learning flow design. The full score requires seamless, educationally sound interactions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/enterprise-digital-transformation-maturity-assessment.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1041,
-  "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. Develop a small application for assessing enterprise digital transformation maturity, preferably one that can be operated by scanning a QR code, and provide an operation guide.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the digital transformation assessment functionality fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a comprehensive assessment system with properly defined maturity dimensions (e.g., technology, people, process, customer experience), scoring mechanics, and result interpretation. Score 0 if the core assessment logic is missing, 5 if only basic scoring is implemented without proper dimensions, and 10 if the assessment framework follows industry standards (like CMMI or other recognized maturity models) with clear dimension definitions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the QR code scanning and mobile responsiveness properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the application includes a functional QR code generation system and properly implements the scanning mechanism (either using device camera APIs or a third-party library like jsQR). Verify if the application is fully responsive across different mobile devices (iOS/Android) with appropriate viewport settings and flexible layouts. Deduct 5 points if QR code scanning fails on common devices, and 3 points if the mobile layout breaks on standard screen sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is data storage and result persistence implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the application provides proper data persistence options (localStorage, sessionStorage, server-side storage, exportable reports). Check if assessment results can be saved, retrieved, and compared over time to track maturity progress. Deduct 5 points if results cannot be saved between sessions, and 3 points if there's no way to export or share results. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the visualization of assessment results effective and insightful?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the application presents results using appropriate data visualizations (radar charts, heatmaps, progress indicators) that effectively communicate maturity levels across different dimensions. Check if benchmarking against industry standards or peers is included. Deduct 5 points for basic text-only results, 3 points for non-interactive visualizations, and 2 points if visualization lacks comparative context. 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 offline usage, input validation, handling incomplete assessments, browser compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered recommendations based on assessment results 2. Integration with business KPIs to show correlation 3. Peer comparison with anonymized industry data). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple assessment frameworks without clear purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to digital transformation assessment (e.g., unrelated analytics) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., heavy animations that slow down the application). 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 assessment logic/view/data layers), proper error handling, and code 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 no separation between the UI 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) Question transitions feel natural and intuitive 2) Loading states provide feedback during processing 3) Clear visual progress indicators during the assessment. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jarring transitions between assessment sections, and 5 points for confusing navigation or unclear next steps. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/exam-paper-grading-interface-auto-manual.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 766,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for demonstration purposes. Now, I want to create an exam paper grading interface that includes both automatic grading for objective questions and manual grading capabilities for subjective questions that teachers can use.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the automatic grading system for objective questions fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements automatic scoring algorithms for multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank, and matching questions. Check if it includes answer key comparison logic, partial credit calculation, and score aggregation mechanisms. Score 0 if basic auto-grading is not implemented, 5 if only simple multiple choice grading works, and 10 if all objective question types are handled with sophisticated scoring rules including partial credit and negative marking.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the manual grading interface for subjective questions professionally designed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the manual grading interface provides efficient tools for teachers including: rubric-based scoring, annotation tools, comment systems, and score adjustment capabilities. Check for features like drag-and-drop scoring, keyboard shortcuts, and batch operations. Deduct 5 points if annotation tools are missing, 3 points if rubric integration is absent. Full score requires seamless teacher workflow optimization.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is comprehensive exam paper management and data persistence implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system includes complete exam paper lifecycle management: paper creation/import, student response collection, grading progress tracking, and result export functionality. Evaluate data storage mechanisms, backup systems, and grade calculation accuracy. Deduct 5 points if progress cannot be saved mid-grading, 3 points if export formats are limited. Requires robust data integrity and recovery mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are advanced grading features and analytics provided?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the system includes sophisticated features like: statistical analysis (grade distribution, question difficulty analysis), plagiarism detection for text responses, grade normalization tools, and comparative grading interfaces. Check for features like anonymous grading, multiple grader support, and grade dispute resolution workflows. Full implementation of analytics dashboard and reporting tools required for maximum score.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid input data, file upload failures, network interruptions, concurrent grading conflicts, 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 grading experience (e.g., 1. AI-assisted essay scoring suggestions 2. Voice-to-text annotation capabilities 3. Collaborative grading with real-time teacher coordination 4. Smart question flagging based on response patterns). 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 score calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to grading (e.g., built-in social media features) 3. Fancy effects that slow down grading workflow (e.g., excessive animations during score entry). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core grading 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 grading logic/UI components/data layers), unit test coverage for scoring algorithms, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or MVC 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 grading interface follows modern educational software design principles: 1) Harmonious color scheme suitable for long grading sessions (no more than 3 primary colors, eye-friendly palette) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear question-answer separation 3) Professional typography (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for eye-straining color combinations, and 5 points for chaotic paper layout organization.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the grading workflow interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the grading interactions optimize teacher efficiency: 1) Score input feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth transitions between questions (300-500ms) 3) Clear visual indicators for graded/ungraded items 4) Intuitive navigation between students and questions. Deduct 5 points for each operation without immediate feedback, 3 points for laggy scrolling through long responses, and 5 points for unclear grading progress indicators.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/exam-room-arrangement-student-label-generator.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1066,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be careful to ensure that any code you generate is executable for demonstration. Create an HTML program for arranging examination rooms and generating labels for each student.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core exam room arrangement logic fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements room allocation algorithms that consider factors like room capacity, examination type/subject, and student distribution. Check if it handles edge cases (e.g., when students exceed available capacity). Score 0 if the core allocation logic is missing, 5 if basic allocation exists but lacks optimization, and 10 if it includes efficient distribution with conflict avoidance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the student label generation system complete?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the label generation includes all necessary student information (ID, name, exam details, room/seat number) with proper formatting and layout. Check if the system allows customization of label templates and supports batch generation. Deduct 3 points if essential information is missing, 5 points if the labels cannot be customized, and 3 points if batch processing is not supported. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is data input and validation properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the program provides user-friendly interfaces for inputting student data and room information, with appropriate validation mechanisms. Verify if it handles various input formats (manual entry, CSV/Excel import) and validates data integrity. Deduct 5 points if input validation is inadequate, 3 points if only one input method is supported, and 5 points if there's no data sanitization. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the output and export functionality comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the program provides multiple output formats for room arrangements and student labels (e.g., on-screen display, printable PDF, exportable spreadsheet). Check if pagination and print optimization are implemented for physical printing. Deduct 3 points for each missing export format, 5 points if print optimization is absent, and 5 points if the output cannot be previewed. 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 input data, browser compatibility issues, print 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 room utilization visualization 2. QR codes on labels for digital verification 3. Automated seating charts with optimal spacing). 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 sorting mechanisms coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to exam arrangement (e.g., a built-in calendar) 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 data processing/UI rendering/printing functionality), code organization, 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 no separation of concerns. 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 accessible?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interface is intuitive and accessible: 1) Clear navigation between steps 2) Responsive design supporting different devices 3) Accessibility features for users with disabilities. Deduct 5 points for confusing workflow, 3 points for lack of responsiveness, and 5 points for failing basic accessibility standards (contrast, keyboard navigation, screen reader support). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/experiment-report-generator.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 474,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Take care to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. Develop an experiment report generator with a form input area on the left (for experiment purpose, equipment, procedures, etc.) and real-time report preview on the right. Provide template selection options (Physics/Chemistry/Biology) with different CSS styles applied to each template. Support the insertion of data tables (with dynamic row and column editing) and line charts (generated based on input data). The final report should be exportable as PDF or HTML files.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the dual-pane form input and preview system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements a split-screen layout with form input area on the left and real-time preview on the right through HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Check if all required form fields (experiment purpose, equipment, procedures, etc.) are present and functional with proper validation. Score 0 if the dual-pane layout is not implemented, 5 if only basic form structure exists without real-time preview, and 10 if complete bidirectional synchronization between input and preview is achieved.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the template selection and CSS styling systems properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes distinct template options for Physics/Chemistry/Biology with unique CSS styling for each template. Check if template switching is seamless and maintains data integrity. Verify that each template has appropriate visual differentiation (color schemes, typography, layout). Deduct 3 points if templates share identical styling, 5 points if template switching causes data loss, and 3 points if CSS styles are not properly encapsulated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic data table functionality fully operational?",
-      "description": "Check whether the data table implementation supports dynamic row and column editing, including add/delete operations, cell editing, and data validation. Evaluate if the table integrates properly with the report preview and maintains data consistency. Deduct 5 points if row/column operations are not supported, 3 points if cell editing is buggy, and 5 points if table data doesn't sync with preview. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the chart generation and PDF/HTML export features complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the line chart generation works correctly based on input data, with proper scaling, labeling, and visual representation. Verify that PDF and HTML export functions produce complete, formatted documents that preserve all styling and content. Deduct 5 points if charts don't render correctly, 5 points if export functions are missing or broken, and 3 points if exported files lose formatting. 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 form input, chart data errors, template switching failures, export 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. Auto-save functionality with version history 2. Drag-and-drop image insertion 3. Real-time collaboration features 4. Advanced chart types beyond line charts 5. Custom template creation). 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 export mechanisms doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to report generation (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations during typing). 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 form handling/preview rendering/export logic), component reusability, 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 the code structure is not maintainable. 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 for different templates (no more than 3 primary colors per template) 2) Proper layout spacing with clear visual hierarchy 3) Professional typography system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times) 4) Consistent form field styling. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for poor template differentiation, and 5 points for inconsistent UI components. 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) Real-time preview updates with delay ≤ 200ms 2) Smooth template switching animations 3) Responsive form interactions with immediate feedback 4) Chart rendering performance under different data loads. Deduct 5 points for each laggy interaction, 3 points for jerky animations, and 5 points for unresponsive form elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/web_applications-education_learning/fifth-grade-english-vocabulary-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1431,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Be sure to create executable code for demonstration where possible. Design a small web game for fifth-graders to practice English vocabulary.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the English vocabulary learning system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a comprehensive vocabulary learning system with word presentation, pronunciation, definition display, and interactive practice methods. Score 0 if the core vocabulary learning components are missing, 5 if only basic word display is implemented, and 10 if it includes multiple learning modes (flashcards, matching, spelling challenges, etc.) appropriate for fifth-grade level.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the game aspect engaging and age-appropriate?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes gamification elements suitable for fifth-graders such as points, levels, achievements, or competitive elements. Deduct 5 points if the game lacks progression mechanics, 3 points if there's no reward system, and 5 points if the difficulty is inappropriate for fifth-grade students. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the vocabulary content appropriate and educational?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the vocabulary content aligns with fifth-grade curriculum standards, includes appropriate difficulty progression, and offers contextual learning. Deduct 5 points if the vocabulary selection is random without educational planning, 3 points if words lack definitions or usage examples, and 5 points if the content doesn't support different learning styles. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there a progress tracking and feedback system?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements progress tracking (such as words mastered, accuracy rates, improvement over time) and provides constructive feedback to learners. Deduct 5 points if there's no persistent progress tracking, 3 points if feedback is generic rather than specific to the learner's performance, and 5 points if there's no visualization of progress. 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 incorrect inputs, browser differences, unloaded resources, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the learning experience (e.g., 1. Speech recognition for pronunciation practice 2. Adaptive difficulty based on performance 3. Social learning components like class leaderboards). 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 learning activities 2. Function modules unrelated to vocabulary learning 3. Fancy effects that distract from learning or affect performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core learning functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating game logic/view/data layers), maintainability, and organization of vocabulary data. 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 vocabulary data isn't externalized for easy updating. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet age-appropriate design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design is suitable for fifth-graders: 1) Clear, readable typography (font size ≥ 16px, high contrast) 2) Age-appropriate visual elements and color schemes 3) Simple, intuitive navigation with clear instructions. Deduct 3 points for each hard-to-read text element, 5 points for overly complex interfaces requiring reading comprehension beyond fifth-grade level, and 5 points for confusing navigation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the interaction accessible and engaging for children?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions are suitable for fifth-graders: 1) Immediate feedback on interactions 2) Forgiving interface that allows for motor skill imprecision 3) Engaging animations and sound effects that reinforce learning. Deduct 5 points for each interaction requiring fine motor skills beyond fifth-grade abilities, 3 points for delayed feedback that could confuse learners, and 5 points for lack of audio support for vocabulary learning. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Web Applications-Education/Learning",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}