@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/celestial-body-motion-simulation-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 301,
-  "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 for display. Write a frontend program that simulates the celestial bodies of the solar system in motion.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model complete and accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code accurately represents all major celestial bodies of the solar system (Sun, 8 planets, major moons, asteroid belt). Check if relative sizes, distances, and orbital characteristics are proportionally represented (can use scale factors but must be consistent). Score 0 if only basic planets are shown, 5 if most bodies are included but with inaccurate proportions, and 10 if the model is comprehensive and scientifically accurate.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the orbital motion physics correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements proper celestial mechanics including elliptical orbits, Kepler's laws, correct orbital periods, and proper angular momentum. Check if planets rotate on their axes with correct tilt angles and rotation periods. Deduct 5 points if orbits are simplified to circular paths, 3 points if orbital speeds are inaccurate, and 2 points if axial rotation is missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the 3D rendering and visualization effective?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the simulation uses proper 3D rendering techniques (WebGL/Three.js/Canvas) with appropriate camera controls, lighting effects, and texture mapping. Check for proper perspective, depth perception, and the ability to view the system from different angles. Award 10 points for full 3D implementation with realistic textures and lighting, 5 points for basic 3D with limited view controls, and 0 points if only 2D representation is used.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are interactive features and user controls implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation provides user interaction features like zoom in/out, speed control, focus tracking of specific planets, time manipulation, and information display. Check for smooth transitions between views and intuitive control mechanisms. Deduct 2 points for each missing core interaction feature, and award full 10 points if the simulation offers comprehensive, intuitive controls that enhance educational value.",
-      "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 capability detection, memory management for large textures, responsive design for various screen sizes, 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 experience (e.g., 1. Spacecraft trajectory simulation 2. Historical astronomical events recreation 3. Gravity visualization 4. Educational overlays with scientific facts). 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 calculation of orbital parameters that could be pre-computed 2. Function modules unrelated to astronomical simulation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Excessive effects that affect performance (e.g., too many particle effects or overly detailed textures). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is significantly slowed by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics engine/rendering/user interface layers), performance optimization techniques (object pooling, texture atlasing), and adherence to frontend best practices. Deduct 5 points if global namespace pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or documentation; deduct 5 points if no performance optimization is implemented for this graphics-intensive application. 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 astronomical visualization standards: 1) Scientific color schemes for celestial bodies 2) Proper scale indicators and measurement units 3) Clean UI with minimal obstruction of the simulation view. Deduct 3 points for each misrepresentation of celestial appearance, 5 points for cluttered controls that obscure the simulation, and 5 points for missing essential legends or labels. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the simulation maintains consistent frame rates (minimum 30 FPS) even with multiple celestial bodies. Check that: 1) Camera transitions are smooth with proper easing 2) Time acceleration/deceleration produces continuous motion 3) Orbital paths are rendered without jitter. Deduct 5 points for frame drops below 20 FPS on standard hardware, 3 points for jarring camera movements, and 5 points for any motion that breaks the illusion of continuous celestial movement. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/circuit-experimental-simulator-with-drag-and-drop.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 500,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure that the generated code is executable and displayable.\n\n======== ROLE ========\nYou are an experienced code expert. You have been provided with a software development requirement description and are asked to generate project code based on this requirement. Follow the rules strictly to help users generate complete project code with comprehensive comments in simple, easy-to-understand language. Do not output anything else.\n\n======== OUTPUT RULES ========\n1. Always generate complete, runnable project code. Make sure the project is fully executable\n2. Ensure all code files you output are complete, with no omitted code\n3. Carefully review and check all code before final output, evaluating its executability. If the code cannot be executed or contains errors, it needs to be regenerated\n4. If the requirements involve external API access or need to use user data (images, videos, audio, etc.), please provide simulated data\n\n======== PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ========\nDevelop a multi-step experimental simulator (such as a physics circuit experiment) where users can drag and drop components like batteries, resistors, and wires onto a workspace to form a circuit. Contact points are automatically generated when components touch. Users can double-click on components to set properties (such as voltage). A \"Start Test\" button on the right side verifies if the circuit is closed - if successful, it displays the current intensity; if unsuccessful, it highlights the disconnected location.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the drag-and-drop functionality for circuit components properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements a complete drag-and-drop system for circuit components (batteries, resistors, wires, etc.) with accurate positioning, smooth movement, and proper event handling. Components should be draggable from a component palette to the workspace and repositionable within the workspace. Verify if the drag system handles z-index correctly to prevent visual glitches when components overlap. Score 0 if drag-and-drop is not implemented, 5 if basic movement is implemented but with bugs, and 10 if the system is complete with snap-to-grid and intuitive user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the automatic contact point detection system functional?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the implementation of the contact point detection algorithm. The system should accurately detect when component terminals are close enough to form connections, visualize these connections appropriately, and update the circuit graph model. Check if the code handles different component orientations and contains collision detection logic with appropriate tolerances. Deduct 5 points if the detection is imprecise (>5px tolerance), 3 points if connection visualization is unclear, and 5 points if the underlying circuit graph is not properly updated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the component property editing functionality complete?",
-      "description": "Verify if double-clicking on components opens a properly designed properties dialog that allows users to modify relevant parameters (voltage for batteries, resistance for resistors, etc.). The interface should validate inputs, prevent invalid values, and immediately update the circuit model after changes. Deduct 3 points if validation is missing, 4 points if the UI is not intuitive, and 5 points if property changes don't update the underlying model. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the circuit verification and simulation system correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the 'Start Test' button triggers appropriate circuit analysis, including closed-circuit verification, current flow calculation using Ohm's Law and Kirchhoff's Laws, and proper visual feedback. The system should identify disconnected points with clear highlighting and display accurate current values for working circuits. Deduct 5 points if the circuit analysis is incomplete, 5 points if the current calculation is incorrect, and 3 points if the visual feedback is inadequate. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as rapid component manipulation, invalid circuit configurations, extreme property values, 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 circuit analysis visualization 2. Component behavior animation when current flows 3. Export/import of circuit designs 4. Multiple experiment templates). 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 create connections) 2. Function modules unrelated to circuit simulation (e.g., unnecessary game-like elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow down the simulation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating circuit model/view/simulation logic), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors) 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Immediate feedback when dragging components 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms for property changes 3) Clear visual feedback for successful/unsuccessful connections. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for jerky component movement, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/conservation-of-momentum-animations.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1559,
-  "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 for demonstration purposes. I am a high school physics teacher preparing to teach the law of conservation of momentum. Could you create a series of clear and accurate demonstration animations and organize them into a simple HTML presentation?",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Are the physics principles accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements the law of conservation of momentum with accurate mathematical formulas (p = mv, Σp_before = Σp_after). Check if collision calculations properly handle elastic/inelastic collisions, mass conservation, and velocity calculations. Score 0 if physics formulas are incorrect, 5 if basic momentum is shown but calculations are imprecise, and 10 if all momentum conservation scenarios are accurately modeled with correct physics equations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are comprehensive demonstration scenarios provided?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the animations cover essential momentum conservation scenarios: 1) Two objects colliding (elastic collision) 2) Inelastic collision with objects sticking together 3) Explosion/separation scenarios 4) Different mass ratios demonstrations. Each scenario should be visually distinct and educationally valuable. Deduct 3 points for each missing core scenario. Full score requires at least 4 different momentum conservation demonstrations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the animations educationally effective and scientifically clear?",
-      "description": "Check if animations include real-time display of momentum values, velocity vectors, and mass indicators. Evaluate whether the animation speed allows students to observe and understand the physics process (2-5 seconds per collision cycle). Animations should show before/after momentum calculations clearly. Deduct 5 points if momentum values are not displayed, 3 points if animations are too fast to follow, and 5 points if vector representations are missing.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the HTML presentation structure well-organized for teaching?",
-      "description": "Review whether the presentation includes: 1) Clear navigation between different scenarios 2) Step-by-step progression from simple to complex examples 3) Interactive controls (play/pause/reset) 4) Educational annotations explaining each demonstration. Check if the presentation flow follows pedagogical best practices. Deduct 5 points if navigation is confusing, 3 points if interactive controls are missing, and 5 points if educational context is insufficient.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as division by zero in momentum calculations, extreme velocity values, browser compatibility issues, animation frame drops, etc.) and provide stable performance across different devices. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases and maintain smooth animations. Give 10 points if fully robust, 5 points if average robustness, and 0 points if no exception handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative educational features that enhance learning?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes educational enhancements such as: 1) Interactive parameter adjustment (mass/velocity sliders) 2) Real-time momentum vector visualization 3) Slow-motion replay functionality 4) Comparative analysis tools 5) Quiz/assessment integration. Add 2-3 points for each practical educational feature implemented (maximum 10 points). Features must genuinely enhance physics understanding.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1) Redundant animation implementations or duplicate physics calculations 2) Features unrelated to momentum conservation (e.g., sound effects, decorative elements that distract from learning) 3) Over-complicated visual effects that obscure the physics principles. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if educational clarity is compromised by unnecessary features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separating physics calculations, animation rendering, and UI controls), code organization, and maintainability. Check for proper variable naming, function separation, and code reusability. Deduct 5 points if physics calculations are mixed with rendering code; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate exceeds 30%; deduct 5 points if global variables are overused. Full score requires clean, modular, and maintainable code structure.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet educational presentation standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows educational material principles: 1) High contrast for classroom projection (dark text on light background) 2) Clear, readable fonts (minimum 16px for body text) 3) Logical layout with proper spacing 4) Color coding that aids understanding (e.g., different colors for different objects). Deduct 3 points for each hard-to-read element, 5 points for poor color contrast, and 5 points for cluttered layout that impedes learning.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Are the animations smooth and pedagogically appropriate?",
-      "description": "Judge whether animations are optimized for educational use: 1) Consistent frame rate (minimum 30fps) 2) Appropriate animation speed for observation and learning 3) Clear visual feedback for user interactions 4) Smooth transitions between different scenarios. Deduct 5 points for choppy animations, 3 points for inappropriate speed that hinders comprehension, and 5 points for poor transition effects. Animations should enhance rather than distract from physics understanding.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/draw-lichtenberg-figures-javascript-html5-canvas.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 330,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable for display. Use JavaScript and HTML5 canvas to draw Lichtenberg figures.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Lichtenberg figure generation algorithm correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Examine whether the code implements a proper dielectric breakdown model (DBM) or similar fractal algorithm for Lichtenberg figures, with appropriate randomization and branching probabilities. Verify that the algorithm follows physical principles like path of least resistance, proper bifurcation patterns, and gradual branch thinning. Score 0 if no fractal algorithm is implemented, 5 if basic branching exists but lacks physical accuracy, 10 if the algorithm produces realistic lightning-like patterns with proper physics.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Canvas API properly utilized for rendering?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly initializes the HTML5 Canvas context, sets appropriate dimensions, and uses proper drawing methods (like lineTo, moveTo, stroke) efficiently. Verify proper use of canvas transformations if needed, and assess if the implementation avoids unnecessary redrawing. Deduct 5 points if canvas operations are inefficient, 3 points if resolution/scaling issues exist, and 2 points if canvas clearing/state management is improper. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there effective parameter control for the visualization?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code allows for controlling key parameters of Lichtenberg figures, such as branching probability, segment length, angles, color gradients, and growth speed. Check if at least 5 parameters can be adjusted via UI controls (sliders, inputs, etc.). Score 0 if no parameters are customizable, 5 if only basic parameters exist, 10 if comprehensive controls with real-time updates are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the animation/growth process smooth and visually appealing?",
-      "description": "Assess if the Lichtenberg figure grows organically over time with smooth animation rather than appearing instantly. Check if requestAnimationFrame is used for rendering, growth speed is controllable, and the animation maintains consistent FPS (ideally 60fps). Deduct 5 points if the animation is choppy or inconsistent, 3 points if growth appears unnatural, and 2 points if there's no visualization of the growth process. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, user input errors, performance degradation with complex figures, 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. Interactive figure manipulation by mouse/touch 2. Multiple color schemes or visual styles 3. Ability to save/export the generated figures). 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 drawing routines that do the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to Lichtenberg figure generation (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects that slow down the main visualization). 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 algorithm/rendering/UI layers), maintainability, and optimization for performance. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance optimizations are implemented for complex figures. 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 the UI (complementing the Lichtenberg figure 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) Parameter adjustment reflects immediately in the visualization 3) Clear visual focus guidance for interactive elements. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for significant lag when adjusting parameters, and 5 points for controls that don't clearly indicate their function. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/earth-moon-orbital-simulation-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 394,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you produce is executable for demonstration. Write a frontend program that simulates the orbits of the Earth and Moon.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the celestial mechanics simulation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements orbital physics including gravitational forces, elliptical orbits, and proper scaling. Check if the Earth-Moon system follows realistic orbital parameters (Moon's 27.3-day period, elliptical eccentricity ~0.055, proper distance ratios). Score 0 if basic circular motion is missing, 5 if only simple circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if accurate elliptical orbits with proper physics calculations are included.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the real-time animation system properly constructed?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the animation uses requestAnimationFrame for smooth 60fps rendering, includes time-based calculations rather than frame-based movement, and provides speed controls (pause/play/fast-forward). Check for proper canvas clearing and redrawing optimization. Deduct 5 points if animation stutters or lacks time control, 3 points if performance drops below 30fps during normal operation. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are interactive controls and visualization features comprehensive?",
-      "description": "Check whether the interface includes essential controls: zoom in/out, camera following options (Earth-centered, Moon-centered, system view), time acceleration controls, and orbital trail visualization. Evaluate if users can toggle between different viewing modes and adjust simulation parameters. Deduct 5 points if basic zoom/pan is missing, 3 points if no orbital trails are shown. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the coordinate system and scaling mathematically sound?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements proper coordinate transformations, handles astronomical distances with appropriate scaling factors, and maintains proportional relationships between celestial bodies. Check if the simulation accounts for the barycenter concept and relative size representations. Deduct 5 points if scaling is unrealistic, 3 points if coordinate system causes visual artifacts. Give 10 points if mathematically accurate scaling is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as extreme zoom levels, rapid time changes, browser window resizing, invalid input parameters, etc.) and provide friendly error handling or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases and maintain stable performance, giving 10 points. If robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes enhanced features that improve the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lunar phases visualization 2. Historical date simulation with accurate positions 3. Tidal effects indicator 4. Orbital prediction paths 5. Educational information panels). 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 rendering loops coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to orbital simulation (e.g., built-in weather widgets) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., complex particle systems for stars). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core simulation functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics engine/rendering/UI control layers), proper class/function organization, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no clear architecture is used; deduct 5 points if code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no separation of concerns between calculation and presentation logic. 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) Appropriate space-themed color palette (dark backgrounds with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Proper UI element spacing and layout (controls don't obstruct the main view) 3) Professional typography and iconography (clear labels, intuitive control symbols). Deduct 3 points for each poorly positioned UI element, 5 points for color schemes that reduce visibility, and 5 points for cluttered or confusing interface layout. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactive experience follows usability principles: 1) Mouse/touch controls respond within 100ms 2) Smooth zoom and pan operations without jarring jumps 3) Clear visual feedback for all interactive elements 4) Intuitive gesture controls for navigation. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive control, 3 points for choppy zoom/pan operations, and 5 points for controls that lack clear visual feedback or are difficult to discover. Full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/earth-moon-orbital-system-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 424,
-  "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. Write a piece of HTML frontend code that simulates the Earth-Moon orbital system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Earth-Moon orbital system accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the Earth-Moon orbital system physics, including proper orbital mechanics (elliptical orbit), correct proportional sizes (Earth diameter ≈ 3.7x Moon's), and realistic orbital period ratio. Score 0 if the basic orbital system is not implemented, 5 if only basic circular motion is implemented, and 10 if the simulation includes proper elliptical orbit with accurate parameters.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are celestial bodies accurately represented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the Earth and Moon are visually represented with accurate proportions, textures, and features (Earth with atmosphere/continents, Moon with craters/maria). Evaluate if the relative sizes match astronomical data (Moon ≈ 27% of Earth's diameter). Deduct 3 points if proportions are significantly off, 3 points if textures are missing or unrealistic, and 4 points if key visual features are absent. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the simulation interactive and controllable?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the simulation provides user interaction options such as speed control, zoom in/out functionality, rotation angle adjustment, or pause/resume capabilities. Check if orbital parameters can be modified through UI controls. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control, and 2 points if the controls are implemented but not intuitive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are additional astronomical phenomena incorporated?",
-      "description": "Review whether the implementation includes additional astronomical phenomena such as day/night cycle, lunar phases, solar illumination effects, proper shadow casting, or Earth's axial tilt. Deduct 2 points for each missing major phenomenon, with particular emphasis on lunar phases and shadow mechanics. 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 resizing, device orientation changes, touch input vs. mouse input, etc.) and provide 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 experience (e.g., 1. Informational overlays with astronomical data 2. Historical moon landing site markers 3. Time-lapse controls showing orbital patterns over time). 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 calculations that could be optimized (e.g., recalculating constant values in animation loops) 2. Function modules unrelated to the Earth-Moon system (e.g., unrelated planetary objects) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems or shader effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is compromised by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculations, rendering, and UI controls), code organization, and performance optimization techniques (such as RequestAnimationFrame usage, asset optimization). Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the animation performance is poor (< 30 FPS on standard hardware); deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or clear structure. 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) Appropriate background (dark theme for space context) 2) Proper layout with clear focus on the orbital system 3) Professional labeling and information display (if any). Deduct 3 points for visually distracting elements, 5 points for poor color choices that reduce visibility of celestial bodies, and 5 points for cluttered or illegible UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and scientifically accurate?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation conforms to both technical and scientific standards: 1) Consistent frame rate (≥ 60 FPS) 2) Smooth transitions and movements 3) Accurate representation of orbital mechanics including speed variations at different orbital positions. Deduct 3 points for jerky animations, 4 points for scientifically inaccurate motion patterns, and 3 points for visual glitches during animation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/earth-rotation-revolution-demonstration.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 362,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for display when possible. Create a frontend program that demonstrates Earth's rotation and revolution.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Earth rotation accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly simulates Earth's rotation around its axis (approximately 23.5° tilt) with proper day/night cycle visualization. The rotation should be smooth and at an appropriate speed (either real-time scaled or user-controllable). Deduct 5 points if the rotation axis is incorrect, 3 points if there's no visual indication of day/night transition, and 5 points if rotation animation isn't smooth (jerky or inconsistent).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is Earth's revolution around the Sun properly demonstrated?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code accurately shows Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun, including proper positioning, orbital path visualization, and seasonal changes. The revolution should demonstrate the relationship between Earth's axial tilt and seasons. Deduct 5 points if the orbit shape is incorrectly circular rather than elliptical, 3 points if seasonal changes aren't indicated, and 5 points if the orbital mechanics appear physically unrealistic.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are the celestial bodies visually realistic?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the Earth and Sun models use appropriate textures, lighting effects, and proportional sizing. The Earth should have recognizable continents, oceans, and possibly cloud layers. The Sun should have appropriate lighting effects. Score 0 if basic spheres are used without textures, 5 if basic textures are applied but lighting is flat, and 10 if both bodies are realistically rendered with proper texturing and lighting.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there an interactive user interface for controlling the simulation?",
-      "description": "Check if the implementation includes user controls for adjusting simulation speed, pausing/resuming, zooming in/out, and changing viewing angles. Verify if there are additional educational features like information overlays or tooltips. Deduct 3 points for each missing core control (speed, pause, view adjustment) and 2 points if the controls aren't intuitive.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resizing, performance throttling on different devices, touch vs mouse input, etc.) and provide graceful degradation. 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. Moon phases visualization 2. Real-time shadows based on Sun position 3. Atmospheric scattering effects 4. Educational overlays showing equinoxes/solstices). 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 techniques 2. Function modules unrelated to Earth's rotation/revolution (e.g., a built-in music player) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating rendering/physics/UI layers), reusable components, and optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 3 points if the code doesn't use appropriate 3D libraries (Three.js, Babylon.js, etc.) efficiently; deduct 5 points if there are no performance optimizations for rendering. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Clean UI that doesn't obstruct the celestial visualization 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 visually distracting UI, and 5 points for poor contrast between UI elements and the space background. 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) Animation runs at consistent 60fps 2) Camera transitions are smooth when changing perspectives 3) Zooming maintains focus point properly. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops during animation, 3 points for abrupt camera movements, and 5 points for confusing spatial orientation when navigating the scene. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/flower-petals-falling-computer-desktop.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 789,
-  "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. Create a program for flower petals falling on a computer desktop.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the flower petal animation system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the flower petal floating physics with realistic gravity, wind effects, and natural randomization of movement paths. Check for proper use of requestAnimationFrame or similar timing mechanisms. Score 0 if no animation is implemented, 5 if basic falling animation exists, and 10 if petals exhibit natural, varied falling patterns with proper physics simulation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the implementation support desktop integration?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code creates a transparent overlay that properly integrates with the desktop environment (using Electron, browser features in kiosk mode, or appropriate system APIs). Check if it allows normal desktop usage while petals are falling. Deduct 5 points if it only works in a browser window, and 3 points if it interferes with normal desktop operations. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is there proper petal customization and variety?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code allows for multiple petal types, colors, sizes, and shapes. Examine if it includes at least 3 different flower types with appropriate seasonal variations. Score 0 if there's only one type of petal, 5 if there are a few variations, and 10 if there's extensive customization with realistic petal rendering using SVG or Canvas.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the program have resource management and performance optimization?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements object pooling, proper garbage collection, and throttling mechanisms to prevent memory leaks and CPU overuse. Verify that it scales appropriately based on screen size and system capabilities. Deduct 5 points if performance degrades over time, and 3 points if it doesn't adjust for system load. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resize, background/foreground transitions, different screen resolutions, etc.) and provide graceful error handling. Code with strong robustness should adapt to various environments without breaking, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Interactive petals that respond to mouse movements 2. Day/night cycle or weather effects 3. Seasonal variations or holiday themes). 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 animation calculations that could be optimized 2. Feature modules unrelated to petal animation (e.g., unnecessary UI controls) 3. Effects that harm performance without adding value (e.g., excessive particle systems). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating rendering/physics/configuration layers), code organization, and implementation efficiency. Deduct 5 points if global variables are excessively used; deduct 5 points if the code lacks comments or documentation; deduct 5 points if the implementation uses inefficient algorithms or approaches. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the visual design meet professional standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the petal designs are visually appealing: 1) Natural-looking shapes and textures 2) Appropriate transparency and shading effects 3) Subtle color variations within each petal type. Deduct 3 points for unrealistic petal shapes, 5 points for flat or cartoonish representations lacking detail, and 5 points for unnatural colors or textures. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the animation smooth and natural-looking?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animations conform to real-world physics: 1) Smooth frame rate (≥ 30fps) 2) Natural oscillation and rotation during falling 3) Realistic acceleration and wind effects. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for unnatural movement patterns, and 5 points for uniform/robotic petal behavior lacking variation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}