@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/other-travel_management/vue3-personalized-travel-system.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1648,
-  "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 whenever possible. Nowadays, people often use holidays to travel to various places. A personalized travel system can help people manage their travel activities, offering features such as travel destination recommendations, travel route planning, tourist attraction queries, and travel diary sharing.\n\nBefore traveling: First select travel destinations based on popularity, reviews, and personal interests;\nDuring travel: Within attractions (including schools), plan optimal visiting routes based on sightseeing goals, provide attraction information and location queries while touring;\nAfter traveling: Generate travel diaries based on photos taken and travel experiences.\n\nAccording to these requirements, please build a Vue3-based website framework that implements the above features. Include the App.vue and main.js files, and list all additional dependencies that need to be installed.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Vue3 project architecture properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements a Vue3 project structure with App.vue, main.js, and necessary component organization. Check for the use of Vue3's Composition API, proper component hierarchy, and adherence to Vue3 best practices. Score 0 if the basic Vue3 setup is missing, 5 if implemented but with structural issues, 10 if fully implemented with clean architecture.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the pre-travel destination selection features fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes functionality for users to browse and select travel destinations based on popularity, reviews, and personal interests. Check for filtering mechanisms, recommendation algorithms, and data visualization of destination metrics. Deduct 3 points if personalization features are missing, 4 points if there's no review system, and 3 points if destination comparison functionality is absent. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the during-travel route planning and attraction query system implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the system provides optimal route planning based on user preferences and sightseeing goals. Check for map integration, geolocation functionality, and real-time attraction information queries. Deduct 5 points if route optimization is missing, 3 points if there's no location-based search, and 2 points if attraction details are incomplete. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the post-travel diary generation feature properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the application provides functionality to generate travel diaries from photos and experiences. Verify the presence of photo uploading, diary editing tools, and sharing mechanisms. Deduct 4 points if photo management is missing, 3 points if diary templates are not available, and 3 points if sharing options are limited. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network failures, invalid user inputs, missing data, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. AI-powered travel recommendations 2. Augmented reality for attraction information 3. Automated itinerary optimization based on weather forecasts). 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 map providers serving the same purpose) 2. Function modules unrelated to travel planning (e.g., a built-in generic game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive 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 API calls/state management/UI components), test coverage, and build process optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state is poorly managed; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the dependency management is chaotic or outdated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast sliding, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Other-Travel Management",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/other-ui_ux_design_standards/ten-lines-at-a-glance-display-standard.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 854,
-  "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 presented. \"Ten Lines at a Glance\" Training\nBased on the title, generate a standard for an app's subtitle display that allows viewing ten lines at a glance.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the subtitle display system properly designed?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements a proper subtitle display mechanism that shows exactly 10 lines at a time. Check if it handles text wrapping correctly, accounts for different screen sizes, and maintains consistent line height. Score 0 if the display doesn't show 10 lines, 5 if it shows 10 lines but with inconsistent spacing or formatting, and 10 if it perfectly displays 10 lines with proper formatting and responsiveness.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is text rendering optimization implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes techniques for efficient text rendering such as text virtualization, canvas-based rendering, or optimized DOM manipulation for smooth scrolling through subtitles. Check if the implementation prevents layout thrashing when updating lines. Deduct 5 points if no optimization is present, 3 points if basic optimization exists but performance still suffers under load. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there a proper timing synchronization mechanism?",
-      "description": "Check if the subtitle system includes synchronization with media timing (video/audio) through either timestamp-based or duration-based approaches. Verify that there's a mechanism to adjust subtitle display based on playback speed changes. Deduct 5 points if subtitles aren't properly synchronized, 3 points if synchronization works only at normal speed. Award 10 points for a comprehensive solution with frame-accurate timing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the implementation handle various subtitle formats and languages?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code supports common subtitle formats (SRT, WebVTT, etc.) and handles different languages properly, including right-to-left text, vertical text, and complex scripts. Check if it correctly manages Unicode characters and text that requires special rendering. Deduct 5 points if only one format is supported, 3 points if language support is limited. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as malformed subtitle files, missing timing information, overlapping time codes, 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. Dynamic font sizing based on content importance 2. Color-coded speaker identification 3. Smooth transition animations between subtitle changes). 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 subtitle parsing mechanisms 2. Unnecessary rendering loops or DOM manipulations 3. Overly complex animations that could impact performance or readability. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core subtitle display functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating subtitle parsing/rendering/synchronization), 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 subtitle display follows modern design principles: 1) Appropriate contrast ratio between text and background (minimum 4.5:1) 2) Proper typography with adequate spacing between lines (1.2-1.5× line height) 3) Consistent margins and padding around the subtitle area. Deduct 3 points for poor contrast, 5 points for illegible font choices, and 5 points for inconsistent spacing or alignment. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the subtitle transitions conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Subtitles appear and disappear without jarring 2) Smooth scrolling if content changes while maintaining readability 3) Proper focus handling for accessibility. Deduct 5 points for abrupt transitions between subtitles, 3 points for stuttering during scrolling, and 5 points for lack of user controls for subtitle display preferences. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Other-UI/UX Design Standards",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/other-video_streaming_application/winui3-ffmpeg-rtsp-video-stream-display.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 209,
-  "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. I am developing a WinUI3 application and need to use ffmpeg.autogen to pull RTSP streams and display the video stream on an Image control, without audio. The video delay needs to be strictly controlled, expected to be within 200ms. Please provide a detailed design solution and output the complete code for direct use.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the RTSP stream pulling mechanism correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly initializes ffmpeg.autogen libraries, sets up the RTSP connection with appropriate parameters (TCP transport preferred over UDP for stability), and includes proper error handling for stream connection failures. Check if the code includes low-latency configurations like setting 'rtsp_flags' to 'prefer_tcp' and using 'fflags' with 'nobuffer' and 'flush_packets' options. Score 0 if ffmpeg initialization is missing, 5 if basic RTSP connection works without optimizations, and 10 if all low-latency configurations are properly implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the video frame processing pipeline optimized for low latency?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the decoding pipeline minimizes buffering, uses direct memory access when possible, and implements frame skipping for maintaining real-time playback. Check if the solution correctly handles I-frames vs P-frames, avoids unnecessary frame copying, and implements a proper synchronization mechanism. Deduct 5 points if frame buffering exceeds 2 frames, 3 points if frame conversion adds unnecessary overhead, and 2 points if timestamp management is improperly implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is WinUI3 rendering properly integrated with ffmpeg's output?",
-      "description": "Check if the solution properly converts decoded frames to a format compatible with WinUI3's Image control (like SoftwareBitmap or WriteableBitmap), handles UI thread synchronization properly, and optimizes the rendering process. Verify that the solution includes proper disposal of unmanaged resources and doesn't leak memory during frame conversions. Deduct 5 points if UI thread synchronization is incorrect, 3 points if frame conversion is inefficient, and 2 points if memory management is improper. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is latency measurement and control implemented effectively?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the solution includes accurate methods to measure end-to-end latency, from capture to display, and implements strategies to maintain it under 200ms. Check for frame timestamp comparison, queue management techniques, or adaptive frame dropping algorithms. Deduct 5 points if no latency measurement is implemented, 3 points if measurements are inaccurate, and 2 points if there's no mechanism to maintain latency targets. Give 10 points for a comprehensive solution with adaptive control mechanisms.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruptions, malformed packets, codec errors, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Check if the solution implements connection retry logic, graceful degradation for poor network conditions, and proper cleanup on errors. 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 latency display on the UI 2. Network quality indicator 3. Dynamic quality adjustment based on connection speed 4. Multiple stream support with thumbnail previews). 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 initialization of ffmpeg components 2. Unnecessary processing steps in the video pipeline that add latency 3. UI elements or threading models that don't contribute to the core functionality or performance. 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 stream acquisition/decoding/rendering layers), error handling coverage, and resource management. 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 proper resource disposal is not implemented. Check if the solution follows RAII principles for unmanaged resources. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the WinUI3 interface follows modern design principles: 1) Proper layout using Grid/StackPanel with appropriate margins 2) High-contrast controls for stream control and status indicators 3) Responsive design that handles window resizing gracefully. Deduct 3 points for each poorly implemented UI element, 5 points for inconsistent styling, and 5 points for poor layout adaptation to different window sizes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the application provides responsive controls: 1) Stream connect/disconnect response ≤ 100ms 2) Clear visual indicators for buffering states 3) Proper error message display with actionable information. Deduct 5 points for operations without feedback, 3 points for UI freezes during stream operations, and 5 points for confusing state representations. Check if the solution implements proper UI thread marshaling to prevent freezing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Other-Video Streaming Application",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/other-web_component_development/vue-virtual-table-component-development.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 263,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure to ensure that any code you generate is executable and demonstrable. Vue virtual table component development.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the virtual table core virtualization logic properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements row/column virtualization by rendering only visible elements within the viewport. Check for proper calculation of visible range based on scroll position, container dimensions, and item heights. Score 0 if virtualization is absent, 5 if only basic virtualization exists, and 10 if both horizontal and vertical virtualization with variable height/width support are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the scroll performance optimization comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the implementation uses proper optimization techniques such as: requestAnimationFrame for scroll handling, debouncing of expensive calculations, DOM recycling patterns, and efficient style updates. Check for frame rate maintenance under heavy load (should maintain 60fps with 10,000+ rows). Deduct 5 points if scroll jank occurs with large datasets, 3 points if memory usage grows significantly during scrolling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the essential table features complete?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of core table functionalities: column sorting, filtering, resizing, reordering, fixed headers/columns, cell formatting, and nested data support. Each missing essential feature deducts 2 points. The component should maintain virtualization effectiveness while supporting these features. Deduct 5 points if features break virtualization.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the component API well designed for Vue ecosystem integration?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the component API design including props interface, events emission, slots usage, and Vue lifecycle hooks handling. Verify that the component respects Vue's reactivity system and properly implements v-model/two-way binding where appropriate. Check compatibility with both Vue 2 and Vue 3 or clear documentation about version support. Deduct 5 points for incomplete reactivity, 3 points for poor slot implementation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles common edge cases (empty data sets, dynamic data updates, window resizing, extreme dimensions, etc.) and provides appropriate error boundaries. Check for defensive programming practices around scroll calculations. Deduct 3 points for each unhandled edge case. Code with strong robustness should handle these scenarios gracefully, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 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. Progressive loading with placeholders 2. Cell-level animations that maintain performance 3. Context-aware column width optimization 4. Intelligent sticky positioning). 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. Multiple implementations of scrolling logic 2. Features unrelated to table visualization 3. Heavy visual effects that compromise virtualization performance. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core virtualization is compromised by unnecessary code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review separation of concerns (data handling, virtualization logic, rendering, event handling), test coverage for core logic, and build configuration. Check for TypeScript type definitions and JSDoc documentation. Deduct 5 points if global state management is chaotic; deduct 5 points if the code has excessive coupling between components; deduct 5 points if there's no build optimization for tree-shaking. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the table design follows modern UI principles: 1) Consistent cell padding and alignment 2) Clear visual hierarchy between header/data rows 3) Proper use of borders and separators 4) Responsive design considerations. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent spacing, 5 points for poor contrast between UI elements, and 5 points for lack of visual feedback on interaction (hover, selection states). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the scrolling behavior feels native and smooth: 1) No visible rendering gaps during fast scrolling 2) Smooth transition when items enter/exit the viewport 3) Proper handling of touch/trackpad inertial scrolling. Deduct 5 points for visible rendering pop-in/flicker, 3 points for scroll position jumping, and 5 points for poor touch device support. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Other-Web Component Development",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/other-web_development/create-dynamic-website-from-existing-one.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 325,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the code you generate is executable. Could you create a similar dynamic website based on an existing one, and provide me with the source code? If you're confident you can do this, I'll share the website with you. How does that sound?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Website Structure Implementation",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code properly implements the basic structure of the website, including HTML markup, CSS styling, and JavaScript functionality that mirrors the reference site.Score 0 if the structure is completely different from the reference, 5 if it has similar structure but significant differences, and 10 if it accurately reproduces the reference site's structure with proper semantic HTML elements.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Visual Design Fidelity",
-      "description": "Assess how closely the implementation matches the visual design of the reference site, including colors, typography, spacing, and overall layout.Deduct 2 points for each significant visual discrepancy from the reference site (colors off by more than 10% in RGB values, font sizes different by more than 2px, layout spacing off by more than 15px). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Interactive Elements Functionality",
-      "description": "Check whether all interactive elements (buttons, forms, dropdowns, etc.) function similarly to the reference site, including proper hover states, click events, and form validations.Deduct 2 points for each non-functional interactive element, and 1 point for each element with partial functionality (e.g., hover states work but click events don't). Give 10 points if all interactive elements work as expected.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Responsive Design Implementation",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the site is responsive like the reference site, adapting properly to different screen sizes (mobile, tablet, desktop) with appropriate breakpoints and media queries.Score 0 if no responsive design is implemented, 5 if basic responsiveness exists but with layout issues at certain breakpoints, and 10 if the implementation adjusts smoothly across all screen sizes matching the reference site's behavior.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as incorrect user input, network failures, resources failing to load, 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 or improvements over the reference site that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Performance optimizations 2. Accessibility improvements 3. Enhanced animations or transitions).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 2. Function modules unrelated to the reference site 3. Fancy effects that affect performance and weren't in the original site.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 components, styles, and logic), code organization, best practices for the technologies used, and build process implementation.Deduct 5 points if global style/script pollution is found; 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 2) Proper layout spacing 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times).Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance.Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for visual after-images during fast interactions, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Other-Web Development",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-3d_simulation/3d-earth-view-tianditu-supermap.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 831,
-  "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 and ready for demonstration. Create a 3D Earth view by loading satellite imagery and Chinese annotation services from Tianditu (China's map service), combined with SuperMap terrain services. Please provide the project structure and related code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the 3D Earth visualization fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code accurately implements a 3D Earth globe using WebGL/Three.js, with proper sphere geometry, texture mapping of satellite imagery, and camera controls for rotation/zoom. Check if the Earth has realistic shading, atmosphere effects, and proper geographic coordinate mapping. Score 0 if basic Earth rendering is missing, 5 if only a simple textured sphere is implemented, and 10 if a complete Earth representation with proper lighting and atmosphere is achieved.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is Tianditu satellite imagery integration properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code correctly implements the Tianditu API for satellite imagery, including proper API key authentication, tile loading system, level-of-detail management, and tile caching mechanisms. Verify if the imagery properly wraps around the Earth sphere with correct geographic positioning. Deduct 5 points if imagery appears distorted, 3 points if there's no caching strategy, and 5 points if tile loading doesn't implement progressive resolution. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are Chinese annotation services correctly integrated?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the Chinese annotation layer from Tianditu is properly implemented, including city names, geographic features, and administrative boundaries in Chinese language. Check for proper label placement, collision detection, and dynamic visibility based on zoom level. Deduct 5 points if annotations appear at incorrect geographic positions, 3 points if there's no label prioritization system, and 5 points if Chinese characters render incorrectly. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the SuperMap terrain service integration successful?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code correctly implements SuperMap terrain services for elevation data, with proper heightmap sampling, terrain mesh generation, and texture blending. Check if the terrain has appropriate detail levels based on viewing distance, and if it correctly aligns with the satellite imagery. Deduct 5 points if terrain appears disconnected from imagery, 3 points if there's no level-of-detail system, and 5 points if elevation data loading doesn't handle errors gracefully. 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 API failures, network interruptions, unsupported browsers, and WebGL limitations) and provide friendly error prompts or fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should implement retry logic for failed tile loading, graceful degradation for older browsers, and memory management for large datasets. Give 10 points if all major edge cases are handled, 5 points if only basic error handling exists, and 0 points if exceptions are not 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. Time-based day/night cycle visualization 2. Weather data overlay 3. Historical imagery comparison 4. Point-of-interest search functionality 5. Flight path animations). 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 Earth rendering engines coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the Earth visualization (e.g., unrelated UI components) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive shader effects that cause framerate drops). 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 visualization logic/data loading/UI layers), dependency management, code reusability, 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 for UI controls that don't interfere with map visualization 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system with proper support for both Latin and Chinese characters (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) Earth rotation and zoom response ≤ 60ms for smooth 60fps rendering 2) Tile loading with proper visual feedback during retrieval 3) Smooth level-of-detail transitions without popping artifacts. Deduct 5 points for jerky rotation or zoom, 3 points for visible texture popping during navigation, and 5 points for unresponsive controls during data loading. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-3D Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-3d_simulation/3d-li6ps5cl-crystal-lattice.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 217,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for display. Please help me create a 3D model in HTML format showing the Li₆PS₅Cl crystal lattice with co-doping of Cl and Br elements, and indicate the migration pathways of various ions.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the 3D crystal lattice structure of Li₆PS₅Cl accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly represents the Li₆PS₅Cl crystal structure with proper atom positions, bond lengths, and lattice parameters according to crystallographic data. Check if the code uses the correct space group (F-43m) and includes all atomic positions for Li, P, S, and Cl atoms. Score 0 if the structure is completely inaccurate, 5 if basic structure is present but with significant errors, and 10 if the structure matches published crystallographic data with high accuracy.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the co-doping of Cl and Br elements properly visualized?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements the substitutional doping of Br at Cl sites with appropriate visualization (distinct colors, sizes, or labels). The implementation should show the distribution of dopants either randomly or at specific sites based on energetic considerations. Deduct 5 points if only one halogen element is shown, 3 points if the doping is visually indistinguishable, and 2 points if the doping ratio is unrealistic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the ion migration pathways clearly visualized?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code effectively visualizes Li+ ion migration pathways through the crystal structure, showing the energy landscape and bottlenecks. The visualization should distinguish between different pathway types (intra-cage vs. inter-cage transitions) and indicate energy barriers. Deduct 5 points if pathways are static only, 5 points if energy barriers are not indicated, and 3 points if the coordination environment changes during migration are not shown. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the implementation use appropriate 3D rendering techniques?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the 3D rendering implementation using WebGL (Three.js, Babylon.js) or similar technologies. The rendering should include proper lighting, camera controls, perspective, material properties, and anti-aliasing. Deduct 3 points for missing camera controls, 3 points for improper lighting that obscures structural details, 2 points for lack of material differentiation between elements, and 2 points for missing anti-aliasing. 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 compatibility issues, WebGL not supported, performance on low-end devices, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the scientific visualization experience (e.g., 1. Interactive property calculations 2. Real-time manipulation of doping concentration 3. Energy barrier visualization along migration paths 4. Cross-sectional view capabilities). 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 visualization methods 2. Function modules unrelated to crystal structure visualization (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Effects that affect performance without adding scientific value (e.g., excessive particles or animations). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core visualization 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 crystal structure data/rendering/interaction layers), performance optimization techniques, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code doesn't implement memory management for large structures; deduct 2 points if the render loop isn't optimized for performance. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional scientific visualization standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows scientific standards: 1) Appropriate color scheme for different elements (following CPK or similar convention) 2) Proper scale representation with measurement indicators 3) Clean interface with scientific annotations and legends. Deduct 3 points for incorrect atom coloring, 3 points for missing scale indicators, and 4 points for lack of proper legends explaining visual elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the interactive experience intuitive and educational?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactive features enhance understanding: 1) Responsive rotation, zoom, and pan controls 2) Interactive selection of specific atoms or pathways 3) Visual feedback when examining structures 4) Educational tooltips or information panels. Deduct 3 points for sluggish controls, 2 points for missing selection capabilities, 3 points for lack of educational content, and 2 points for unintuitive UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-3D Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-3d_simulation/display-unstructured-vtk-models-threejs.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 387,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the generated code is executable for demonstration. How to display unstructured .vtk models in Three.js? Please provide code.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "1. Is the VTK file loading mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements a loading mechanism for .vtk files. Check if it handles different VTK formats (ASCII/binary), supports various VTK datasets (structured/unstructured), and provides proper error handling during file parsing. Score 0 if no loading mechanism exists, 5 if only basic ASCII VTK is supported, and 10 if comprehensive VTK format support is implemented with robust error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "2. Is the conversion from VTK to Three.js geometry properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code correctly transforms VTK geometric elements (points, cells) into appropriate Three.js geometries. Check if it handles different cell types (tetrahedra, hexahedra, etc.) and properly constructs faces/edges. Verify if attributes like normals and colors are preserved. Score 0 if no conversion exists, 5 if only basic conversions are implemented, and 10 if all common VTK element types are properly converted with attribute preservation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "3. Does the code handle unstructured grid visualization specifically?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code specifically addresses the challenges of unstructured grids in VTK. Verify if it properly handles the irregular topology, performs efficient triangulation for visualization, and maintains topological relationships. Deduct 5 points if the implementation only handles structured grids, and 3 points if the unstructured visualization is inefficient. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "4. Are visualization controls and interactions implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code provides essential visualization controls (rotation, pan, zoom) and additional interactions like section cutting, clipping planes, or picking. Check if camera controls are smooth and intuitive. Deduct 5 points if basic controls are missing, and 3 points if advanced interactions are absent. Give 10 points if comprehensive interaction features are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "5. Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as malformed VTK files, memory limitations with large models, WebGL context loss, 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": "6. Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. On-the-fly scalar field visualization 2. Cross-section analysis tools 3. Dynamic mesh refinement). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "7. Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant data processing steps that could be optimized 2. Visualization features unrelated to VTK model display 3. Fancy effects that affect rendering performance unnecessarily. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functionality is compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "8. Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating VTK parsing/geometry conversion/rendering), code reusability, and memory management for large models. 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 attention is paid to memory optimization for large meshes. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "9. Does the interface vision meet professional visualization standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows scientific visualization principles: 1) Appropriate color maps for scalar data 2) Clear distinction between model components 3) Professional lighting setup that enhances geometric perception. Deduct 3 points for poor color choices that obscure data patterns, 5 points for inadequate lighting that flattens 3D perception, and 5 points for cluttered visual presentation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "10. Is the rendering performance optimized?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the rendering is optimized for performance: 1) Appropriate use of BufferGeometry for large meshes 2) Level-of-detail techniques for complex models 3) Efficient shader usage. Deduct 5 points for each performance bottleneck (frame rate below 30fps for moderate-sized models), 3 points for missing optimizations with large datasets, and 5 points if memory leaks occur during model switching. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-3D Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}