@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-animation-html.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1188,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that any code you provide is executable for demonstration. Create an HTML animation demonstrating the operation of the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model astronomically accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements accurate relative scaling of planetary sizes, orbital distances, and orbital periods. Check if the sun is properly centered and planets rotate at different speeds according to astronomical data. Score 0 if planets are randomly positioned, 5 if basic orbital mechanics are implemented but with inaccurate scaling, and 10 if the model closely resembles actual astronomical proportions (with acceptable artistic license).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the animation implement smooth planetary motion?",
-      "description": "Check if the animation uses requestAnimationFrame() or appropriate timing mechanisms rather than setTimeout/setInterval for smoother rendering. Assess if orbital motion is fluid (minimum 30fps) and whether the code implements proper circular/elliptical paths using mathematical functions (sine/cosine or elliptical equations). Deduct 5 points for jerky animations or frame drops, and 3 points if orbital paths are visibly polygonal rather than smooth curves. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are interactive features included to enhance the learning experience?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the presence and quality of interactive elements such as zoom controls, planet information on hover/click, ability to adjust simulation speed, or toggle orbital paths/labels. Deduct 5 points if no interactivity exists, 3 points if interactions lack visual feedback, and 5 points if interactions break the simulation. The full score is 10 points only if multiple well-implemented interactive features are present.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the visualization include additional astronomical details?",
-      "description": "Check whether the implementation includes details such as planetary rotations, moon systems for relevant planets, asteroid belt representation, planetary textures/colors, or day/night cycles. Score 0 if only basic colored circles represent planets, 5 if some detailed elements are present but incomplete, and 10 if multiple astronomical details enhance the educational value of the animation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, browser compatibility issues, performance throttling, etc.) and provide graceful degradation 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. Realistic lighting/shadow effects 2. Comet/special astronomical event simulations 3. Time progression display showing Earth days/years). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar rendering functions 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unnecessary UI elements) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems that slow down the animation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core animation is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating astronomical calculations from rendering logic), code reusability (e.g., planet object factory pattern), and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance considerations are evident for complex animations. 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) Aesthetically pleasing space background that enhances visibility of planets 2) Proper contrast between planets, orbits and background 3) Professional typographic system for any labels or information (legible font size ≥ 14px, appropriate contrast). Deduct 3 points for each visual element with poor contrast, 5 points for color combinations that reduce clarity, and 5 points for cluttered information display. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation and any interactive elements respond appropriately: 1) Animation runs at consistent framerate without stuttering 2) Interactive elements respond within 100ms 3) Transitions between different states (if any) are smooth and visually pleasing. Deduct 5 points for performance bottlenecks that cause visible lag, 3 points for delayed response to user inputs, and 5 points for abrupt visual changes without proper transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-celestial-body-movement-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 296,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for demonstration. Write HTML code that simulates the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code correctly represents the relative positions, sizes, and orbits of the major celestial bodies (Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). Evaluate if orbital mechanics are simulated with reasonable accuracy (elliptical orbits, relative distances). Score 0 if fewer than 5 celestial bodies are implemented, 5 if basic circular orbits are present, and 10 if accurate elliptical orbits with proper inclinations are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the celestial body movement animations smooth and physically accurate?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the animation uses requestAnimationFrame or similar techniques for smooth rendering. Check if the orbital periods maintain proper relative timing (e.g., Earth's year vs. Mars' 1.88 Earth years). Verify if the rotation of planets on their axes is implemented. Deduct 5 points if animation is jerky (< 30fps), 3 points if orbital periods are randomly assigned rather than proportionally accurate, and 5 points if there's no planetary rotation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the visualization scalable and responsive?",
-      "description": "Test if the solar system visualization adapts to different screen sizes and device orientations. Verify if proper scaling is implemented (the real solar system has vast empty spaces that need smart scaling). Check if a responsive design approach is used with relative units or viewport units. Deduct 5 points if the visualization breaks on mobile screens, 3 points if planets become too small to see on certain devices, and 5 points if no scaling mechanism exists.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are interactive elements implemented to enhance user experience?",
-      "description": "Assess if the code includes user controls like zoom, pause/play, speed adjustment, or ability to focus on specific planets. Check if tooltips or information panels are available when hovering/clicking on celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction (zoom, pause/play, speed control), and award full points only if at least 3 different meaningful interactions are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resize, browser compatibility issues, varying performance capabilities). Check for presence of error handling, graceful degradation, and performance optimizations. 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. Realistic textures for celestial bodies 2. Comet or asteroid belt visualization 3. Day/night cycle on Earth 4. Moon phases or satellite systems for planets). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar animation functions 2. Unnecessary elements unrelated to celestial mechanics (e.g., irrelevant UI elements) 3. Heavy visual effects that severely affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems that cause lag). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating rendering logic/physics calculations/user interface), code reusability (e.g., using a single celestial body class for all planets), and proper variable/function naming. Deduct 5 points if global variable pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (similar code blocks repeated for each planet); deduct 5 points if hardcoded magic numbers are used instead of constants or configuration objects. 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 scheme with appropriate contrast between space and celestial bodies 2) Proper proportional representation (while acknowledging artistic license for visibility) 3) Clean interface elements that don't obstruct the visualization. Deduct 3 points for each visual element with poor contrast, 5 points for unrealistic or jarring colors that don't mimic actual celestial bodies, and 5 points for cluttered controls. 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) Smooth transitions when changing view or focus 2) Intuitive controls that respond within 100ms 3) Clear visual feedback when interacting with celestial bodies. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for stuttering animations during interactions, and 5 points for disorienting camera movements or transitions. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-celestial-body-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 285,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you provide is executable for display. Frontend program simulating the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model physically accurate?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code implements proper orbital mechanics with gravitational interactions between celestial bodies. Check if Kepler's laws are correctly implemented with proper mathematical formulas for elliptical orbits. Score 0 if planetary orbits are just simple circles, 5 if basic elliptical orbits are implemented but without accurate physical parameters, and 10 if the simulation includes realistic orbital parameters, proper scaling, and accurate relative motion.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are all major celestial bodies of the solar system included?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the completeness of the solar system representation. The minimum should include the Sun, eight planets, and Earth's moon with correct relative sizes and orbital characteristics. Deduct 1 point for each missing major body (up to 5 points). Deduct 3 points if dwarf planets like Pluto or major asteroid belts are missing. Give full points if the simulation includes additional elements like major moons of other planets or asteroid belts with proper representation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the rendering engine optimized for smooth animation?",
-      "description": "Check whether the animation runs at a consistent frame rate (minimum 30 FPS) without stuttering even when all planets and celestial bodies are in view. Evaluate if the code uses requestAnimationFrame or similar optimization techniques rather than simple setInterval. Deduct 5 points if the animation stutters on standard hardware, and 3 points if the code doesn't implement proper time-stepping for simulation. Give full points only if the rendering maintains smooth performance with proper animation loops and timing controls.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the visualization provide interactive features?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the solar system can be manipulated by users through features such as zoom in/out, rotation of the viewing angle, focus tracking on specific planets, or time acceleration controls. Score 3 points for basic camera controls, 3 points for time control (speeding up/slowing down/pausing the simulation), and 4 points for object selection and information display. Deduct all points if no interactivity is implemented.",
-      "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, or unexpected user interactions) 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. Realistic lighting effects and shadows 2. Spacecraft or satellite trajectories 3. Historical celestial events simulation). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar rendering functions (e.g., multiple orbit calculation methods coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system simulation (e.g., a built-in unrelated game) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects that slow down the simulation). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics engine/rendering/user interface layers), code structure, and performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there is no separation between computation and rendering logic. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows modern design principles: 1) Appropriate color scheme for space visualization (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Proper scaling and proportional representation (or clear indication that scaling is artistic) 3) Professional labeling system for celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points for each visual inaccuracy in planetary representation, 5 points for poor color choices that make objects hard to distinguish, and 5 points for confusing or missing labels. 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) Response to user input within 100ms 2) Smooth transitions when changing views or focus 3) Clear visual feedback for user actions. Deduct 5 points for each interaction without visual feedback, 3 points for jerky transitions between views, and 5 points for confusing navigation controls. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

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

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 344,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for demonstration purposes. I am writing a frontend program that simulates the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model correctly implemented with accurate celestial mechanics?",
-      "description": "Verify whether the code accurately implements orbital mechanics (Kepler's laws), gravitational interactions (Newton's law), and proper scaling of planetary sizes and distances. Check if planets follow elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus. Score 0 if basic movement is missing, 5 if only circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if the model includes accurate elliptical orbits with proper orbital parameters (eccentricity, semi-major axis, inclination).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the celestial bodies rendered with appropriate visual fidelity?",
-      "description": "Examine whether planets, moons, and the Sun are represented with texture mapping, appropriate lighting effects (including shadows), and surface details. Check if the rendering includes atmosphere effects where applicable. Deduct 3 points if textures are missing, 2 points if lighting is unrealistic, and 3 points if relative sizes are grossly inaccurate. Give 10 points for photorealistic rendering with detailed textures and correct proportions.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the simulation interactive with proper camera controls?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether users can zoom in/out, rotate the view, focus on specific planets, and adjust simulation speed. Check if the camera transition animations are smooth when switching focus between celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if zooming is jerky, 3 points if rotation controls are unintuitive, and 4 points if the system lacks a way to focus on specific objects. Full score requires seamless transitions and intuitive controls.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Does the simulation include accurate time-based celestial events?",
-      "description": "Check if the code simulates astronomical events like eclipses, planetary conjunctions, and seasonal variations based on axial tilts. Verify if time controls allow for accelerating/decelerating simulation speed to observe these phenomena. Deduct 5 points if no time-based events are implemented, 3 points if events occur but with inaccurate timing. Award full points for accurately timed events with educational explanations.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code handles edge cases such as extreme zoom levels, rapid simulation speeds, and browser resizing. Check for appropriate frame rate management to prevent performance issues on different devices. Deduct 3 points for each unhandled edge case (zooming too far in/out, performance degradation at high speeds). Give 10 points if the simulation maintains stability across various conditions and device capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check for creative features that enhance the educational or visual experience (e.g., 1. Trajectory visualization with orbital paths 2. Interactive information panels with real astronomical data 3. Realistic star field background with actual constellations). Add 3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check for unnecessary elements: 1. Redundant animation systems that could be consolidated 2. Excessive UI controls that clutter the interface 3. Over-detailed calculations that don't contribute to visual accuracy or educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core simulation performance is compromised by unnecessary features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review the code architecture (separation of physics engine, rendering system, and UI controls), optimization techniques for smooth animation (requestAnimationFrame usage, object pooling), and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points for global variable abuse, 5 points for poor performance optimization (no frame limiting or object reuse), and 5 points for duplicated rendering logic. The full score requires clean architecture with clear separation of concerns.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern design principles: 1) Clean control panel layout with logical grouping 2) Proper contrast between space background and interface elements 3) Consistent iconography and typography (body font size ≥ 14px, sufficient contrast with background). Deduct 3 points for cluttered controls, 5 points for poor readability against the space background, and 5 points for inconsistent UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the interactions feel natural and responsive: 1) Camera movements respond within 50ms of input 2) Celestial body selection has clear visual feedback 3) Time control adjustments show immediate effect on simulation speed. Deduct 5 points for laggy camera movement, 3 points for jerky planet rotation/revolution, and 5 points for simulation stuttering when changing parameters. The full score requires consistent 60fps animation with smooth transitions between different views and speeds.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-celestial-movement-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 254,
-  "question": "You are a code expert, please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the generated code is executable for demonstration. Write a frontend program that simulates the movement of celestial bodies in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Review whether the code correctly implements gravitational physics with Newton's law of universal gravitation (F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²) or an appropriate approximation. Check if orbital mechanics are applied with proper initial velocities to maintain stable orbits. Score 0 if planets move in arbitrary paths, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if elliptical orbits with proper Keplerian physics are modeled.",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements gravitational physics with Newton's law of universal gravitation (F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²) or an appropriate approximation. Check if orbital mechanics are applied with proper initial velocities to maintain stable orbits. Score 0 if planets move in arbitrary paths, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if elliptical orbits with proper Keplerian physics are modeled.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Evaluate the completeness of the simulation: At minimum, the Sun, terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) should be present. Deduct 1 point for each missing major planet. Add 2 points if the simulation includes the Earth's moon, 2 points for other significant moons (e.g., Jupiter's Galilean moons), and 1 point for appropriate asteroid belt representation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Evaluate the completeness of the simulation: At minimum, the Sun, terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) should be present. Deduct 1 point for each missing major planet. Add 2 points if the simulation includes the Earth's moon, 2 points for other significant moons (e.g., Jupiter's Galilean moons), and 1 point for appropriate asteroid belt representation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Check whether the visualization maintains proportional relationships (size of planets, orbital distances) or provides a clear scaling mechanism if using non-linear scaling. Evaluate if planets are visually distinguishable with appropriate textures/colors. Deduct 5 points if planetary sizes are grossly disproportionate without explanation, 3 points if orbital distances are misleading, and 2 points if planets lack visual differentiation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Check whether the visualization maintains proportional relationships (size of planets, orbital distances) or provides a clear scaling mechanism if using non-linear scaling. Evaluate if planets are visually distinguishable with appropriate textures/colors. Deduct 5 points if planetary sizes are grossly disproportionate without explanation, 3 points if orbital distances are misleading, and 2 points if planets lack visual differentiation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Assess whether the code implements user interaction controls such as zoom in/out, rotation of view angle, speed control, and the ability to focus on specific celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if zooming is missing, 3 points if rotation control is absent, 2 points if simulation speed cannot be adjusted, and 2 points if there is no way to track/focus on specific planets. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code implements user interaction controls such as zoom in/out, rotation of view angle, speed control, and the ability to focus on specific celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points if zooming is missing, 3 points if rotation control is absent, 2 points if simulation speed cannot be adjusted, and 2 points if there is no way to track/focus on specific planets. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, rendering performance issues, or user interaction edge cases) and provide graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should maintain stable frame rates even with many bodies, giving 10 points. If performance degrades significantly with increased complexity, give 5 points, and if the simulation breaks under normal usage, give 0 points.",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as window resizing, rendering performance issues, or user interaction edge cases) and provide graceful degradation. Code with strong robustness should maintain stable frame rates even with many bodies, giving 10 points. If performance degrades significantly with increased complexity, give 5 points, and if the simulation breaks under normal usage, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Planetary rotation and axial tilt 3. Time-based events like comets or meteor showers 4. Educational information display about selected celestial bodies). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic lighting and shadow effects 2. Planetary rotation and axial tilt 3. Time-based events like comets or meteor showers 4. Educational information display about selected celestial bodies). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant calculations that could be optimized (e.g., recalculating constants each frame) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Excessive visual effects that affect performance without adding value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant calculations that could be optimized (e.g., recalculating constants each frame) 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Excessive visual effects that affect performance without adding value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculation/rendering/user interaction layers), appropriate use of requestAnimationFrame, and optimization techniques. 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 optimization is implemented for the animation loop. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics calculation/rendering/user interaction layers), appropriate use of requestAnimationFrame, and optimization techniques. 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 optimization is implemented for the animation loop. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows modern design principles: 1) Appropriate color scheme for space environment (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the visualization 3) Informative labels and overlays that enhance understanding without cluttering the view. Deduct 3 points for each visual element that creates confusion, 5 points for poor color contrast making planets hard to see, and 5 points for overlapping/unreadable UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visualization follows modern design principles: 1) Appropriate color scheme for space environment (dark background with contrasting celestial bodies) 2) Clean UI controls that don't obstruct the visualization 3) Informative labels and overlays that enhance understanding without cluttering the view. Deduct 3 points for each visual element that creates confusion, 5 points for poor color contrast making planets hard to see, and 5 points for overlapping/unreadable UI elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Judge whether the animation and interactive elements conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Stable framerate of at least 30fps 2) Smooth camera transitions when changing focus 3) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if animation stutters regularly, 3 points for jarring camera movements when switching views, and 5 points if interactive elements have noticeable input lag. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation and interactive elements conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Stable framerate of at least 30fps 2) Smooth camera transitions when changing focus 3) Responsive controls with immediate visual feedback. Deduct 5 points if animation stutters regularly, 3 points for jarring camera movements when switching views, and 5 points if interactive elements have noticeable input lag. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "easy"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-motion-frontend-model.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 367,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to ensure that the code you generate is executable for display. Create a front-end model of the solar system in motion.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is a complete 3D solar system model implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately models the sun, all eight planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), and possibly other celestial bodies like the moon, asteroid belt, or dwarf planets. Check if the planets have appropriate relative sizes, colors, and textures. Score 0 if only basic shapes are used, 5 if planets have distinct appearances but lack detail, and 10 if a realistic representation with textures and distinctive features is provided.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the orbital motion correctly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the orbital mechanics follow realistic patterns with proper elliptical orbits, different speeds based on distance from the sun (Kepler's laws), and correct orbital inclinations. Deduct 5 points if orbits are perfect circles without inclination, 3 points if orbital speeds don't follow astronomical principles, and 2 points if planetary rotations (day/night cycles) are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are lighting effects and shadows properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the sun acts as a light source that correctly illuminates planets based on their position, creating realistic day/night cycles and shadows. Score 0 if there's no lighting, 5 if basic lighting exists but without shadows or proper reflections, and 10 if the implementation includes dynamic lighting, shadows, and possibly atmospheric effects like Earth's blue halo or Venus's cloud coverage.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is there interactivity and user control?",
-      "description": "Assess whether users can interact with the solar system model through features like zooming, rotating the view, focusing on specific planets, adjusting simulation speed, or accessing information about celestial bodies. Deduct 3 points for each missing core interaction (zoom, pan, focus selection), and give full 10 points if advanced controls like time manipulation and educational overlays are implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as browser resize, device orientation changes, performance throttling on weaker devices, etc.) and provide fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should adapt to different screen sizes and maintain performance through level-of-detail adjustments. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling and graceful degradation, 5 points for basic responsive behavior, and 0 points if the visualization breaks easily.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic asteroid belt simulation 2. Comet trajectories 3. Space missions visualization 4. Educational information panels 5. Realistic star background). Add 2 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 constants for each frame) 2. Unnecessary visual elements that detract from the main solar system (e.g., unrelated UI elements) 3. Excessive effects that impact performance without adding educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core solar system visualization is compromised by unnecessary features.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (separation of astronomical calculations, rendering logic, and user interface), efficient use of rendering techniques (WebGL/Three.js optimization), and appropriate design patterns. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 3 points if inefficient rendering approaches are used; deduct 2 points if the animation loop is poorly implemented causing performance issues. 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 principles: 1) Scientific color accuracy for celestial bodies 2) Clear visual hierarchy with proper scale indicators 3) Unobtrusive UI controls that don't interfere with the visualization. Deduct 3 points for inaccurate planet colors, 4 points for poor visual proportion between celestial bodies, and 3 points for cluttered interface elements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the animation performance maintains a consistent frame rate (ideally 60fps): 1) Smooth orbital motion without stuttering 2) Responsive camera controls with inertia 3) Proper loading strategies for textures and models. Deduct 5 points for noticeable frame drops during normal use, 3 points for jerky transitions when changing focus between planets, and 2 points for slow initial loading without progress indicators. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-motion-simulation-frontend.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 392,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to make the generated code executable for display. Write a frontend program that simulates the motion of planets in the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system model accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code correctly implements the astronomical model with accurate relative sizes, distances, and orbital paths of planets. Check if planetary orbits follow Kepler's laws with proper elliptical paths and orbital periods. Score 0 if planets are randomly placed, 5 if basic circular orbits are implemented, and 10 if accurate elliptical orbits with correct astronomical proportions are used.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are planetary movement physics properly simulated?",
-      "description": "Check whether the simulation implements proper physics (gravitational forces between bodies, orbital velocity variations at different points in orbit). Assess if planets move faster when closer to the Sun (perihelion) and slower when farther (aphelion). Deduct 5 points if planets move at constant speeds in perfect circles, and 3 points if axial tilts are missing. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the visualization complete with all solar system components?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the completeness of the visualization: all 8 planets, the Sun, potentially moons, asteroid belts, and dwarf planets. Check for accurate textures/colors for celestial bodies and proper lighting/shadow effects. Deduct 2 points for each missing major planet, 3 points for unrealistic textures, and 5 points if the Sun doesn't serve as a light source. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Are the interactive features and controls well-implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess the implementation of user controls such as zoom in/out, rotation, time acceleration/deceleration, and planet information display. Check for smooth camera transitions and the ability to focus on specific planets. Deduct 3 points if zoom functionality is missing, 3 points if time controls are absent, and 4 points if there's no way to view individual planets. 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, performance throttling on different devices, 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": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Realistic star background with actual constellations 2. Day/night cycle visualization on planets 3. Educational overlays with astronomical 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 implementation of similar rendering functions 2. Function modules unrelated to the solar system simulation 3. Fancy effects that affect performance without adding educational value. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core simulation is interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating physics simulation/rendering/user interaction layers), performance optimization techniques, and resource management. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found; deduct 5 points if the rendering loop is inefficient; deduct 5 points if texture/model resources are not properly managed. 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) Balanced visual layout with the Sun and planets 2) Proper scale representation or clear indicators for actual distances 3) Clean, unobtrusive UI controls that don't distract from the simulation. Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI elements, 5 points for unrealistic or garish planet textures, and 5 points for poor contrast between UI and simulation. 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) Consistent frame rate (minimum 30fps) 2) Smooth camera transitions when focusing on different planets 3) Proper animation timing for orbital movements. Deduct 5 points for jerky animations, 3 points for delayed response to user input, and 5 points for abrupt camera movements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/simulation___modeling-physics_simulation/solar-system-orbital-mechanics-simulation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 219,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Be sure to provide executable code for demonstration purposes. Create a frontend program that showcases the orbital mechanics of the solar system.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the solar system orbital mechanics accurately implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code correctly implements planetary orbital mechanics using physics formulas (Kepler's laws, gravitational forces). Check if orbital parameters include semi-major axis, eccentricity, inclination, and orbital period calculations. Verify that planetary positions are computed using real astronomical data rather than simple circular motion. Score 0 if only basic circular rotation is implemented, 5 if elliptical orbits are included but without proper physics, and 10 if accurate orbital mechanics with realistic parameters are fully implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are all major celestial bodies of the solar system included with proper scaling?",
-      "description": "Check whether the visualization includes all 8 planets, major moons (at least Earth's Moon, Jupiter's Galilean moons), asteroid belt, and the Sun with appropriate relative scaling. Evaluate if the code implements both realistic scale options and compressed scale for better visualization. Deduct 3 points for each missing major celestial body, 5 points if no scaling options are provided. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is real-time orbital simulation with time control implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the system provides real-time orbital simulation with adjustable time speed (1x, 10x, 100x, 1000x speeds). Check if the code includes play/pause controls, date/time display, and the ability to jump to specific dates. Verify that orbital positions remain mathematically accurate across different time speeds. Deduct 5 points if time controls are missing, 3 points if accuracy degrades at high speeds. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is comprehensive interactive exploration functionality provided?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes interactive features such as: camera controls (zoom, pan, rotate), clickable celestial bodies with information panels, orbital path visualization toggles, and follow-camera mode for selected objects. Evaluate if the interface provides educational information (orbital period, distance, composition) for each celestial body. Deduct 5 points if basic camera controls are missing, 3 points if no information panels are provided. Give 10 points if fully interactive with educational content.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid date inputs, extreme time speeds, browser performance limitations, and WebGL compatibility issues) and provide friendly error prompts or fallback mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should gracefully handle edge cases and provide appropriate user feedback, 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 planning and visualization 2. Historical astronomical events simulation 3. Exoplanet comparison mode 4. VR/AR compatibility 5. Real-time data integration from NASA APIs). Add 3 points for each practical innovative feature implemented (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Redundant implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple camera control systems coexisting) 2. Function modules unrelated to solar system visualization (e.g., built-in games or social features) 3. Excessive visual effects that impact performance (e.g., unnecessary particle systems, overly complex shaders). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if core orbital mechanics 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 layers), proper use of design patterns, and code organization. Check for proper resource management (texture loading, memory cleanup), performance optimization (LOD systems, culling), and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or no design patterns are used; deduct 5 points if frame rate drops below 30fps on standard hardware; deduct 5 points if no build process is provided. 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 UI/UX principles: 1) Space-themed color palette with high contrast for readability 2) Proper layout spacing with clear information hierarchy 3) Professional typography system with readable fonts against dark backgrounds 4) Intuitive iconography and controls. Deduct 3 points for each poorly designed UI element, 5 points for poor color contrast affecting usability, and 5 points for cluttered interface layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the 3D rendering performance smooth and visually appealing?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the 3D visualization maintains smooth performance: 1) Consistent 60fps frame rate during normal operation 2) Smooth camera transitions and object animations 3) High-quality textures and lighting effects 4) Proper depth perception and spatial orientation cues. Deduct 5 points for each noticeable frame rate drop, 3 points for choppy animations, and 5 points for poor visual quality that hampers the educational experience. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Simulation & Modeling-Physics Simulation",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}