@getollie/cli 0.0.5 → 0.2.1

package/library/game_development-strategy/mobile-chinese-chess-human-vs-computer.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1789,
-  "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. Create a mobile version of Chinese chess (Xiangqi) that allows for human vs. computer gameplay, which can be opened directly on a mobile phone.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core Chinese chess (Xiangqi) game logic fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the board structure (9x10 grid), all pieces with correct movement rules (General/King, Advisor, Elephant, Horse, Chariot, Cannon, Soldier/Pawn), and game rules (check, checkmate, stalemate, river crossing for pawns). Score 0 if the core logic is missing, 5 if only basic piece movement is implemented, and 10 if all Chinese chess rules are correctly implemented with move validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the human vs. computer AI opponent functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the AI implementation for the computer opponent. Check for basic move generation, evaluation function, search algorithms (minimax/alpha-beta pruning/MCTS), and difficulty levels. Deduct 5 points if AI makes illegal moves, 3 points if AI strategy is too simplistic (random moves), and 2 points if there are no difficulty options. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the mobile-specific UI/UX properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess if the interface is truly mobile-optimized with responsive design, touch controls (vs. mouse events), proper viewport settings, and mobile gestures support. Deduct 5 points if the board doesn't resize properly for different screens, 3 points if touch areas are too small (<44px), and 3 points if no mobile-specific meta tags are implemented. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the game state management and persistence implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes game state management (move history, undo/redo functionality) and persistence (saving game state locally via localStorage/IndexedDB). Evaluate if players can continue games after closing the browser. Deduct 5 points if move history isn't tracked, 5 points if no save/load functionality exists, and 3 points if the persistence mechanism isn't reliable. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid moves, browser back button usage, network fluctuations, device orientation changes, 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. Move hints with color-coded suggestions 2. Audio feedback with traditional Chinese sounds 3. Animation for capturing pieces 4. AR view of the chessboard). 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 move validation logics) 2. Function modules unrelated to Chinese chess (e.g., unnecessary social sharing features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance on mobile devices (e.g., excessive animations that drain battery). 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 game logic/view/controller layers), optimization for mobile (asset loading strategy, touch event debouncing), and offline capabilities. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or proper patterns aren't used; deduct 5 points if the code isn't minified/optimized for mobile; deduct 5 points if there's no manifest file or offline support. 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 mobile design principles: 1) Traditional Chinese chess aesthetics with modern UI elements 2) Proper touch target sizing (minimum 44×44px) 3) Clear visual hierarchy with contrasting piece colors. Deduct 3 points for each hard-to-see game element, 5 points for poor contrast between pieces and board, and 5 points for text that's too small to read on mobile (<16px). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and responsive on mobile devices?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects are optimized for mobile: 1) Touch response delay ≤ 100ms 2) Smooth piece movement animation (60fps) 3) Clear visual/haptic feedback for moves. Deduct 5 points for laggy animations on mid-range devices, 3 points for lack of touch feedback, and 5 points for non-optimized assets causing slowdowns. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-strategy/monopoly-game-web-browser.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 1552,
-  "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. Write a Monopoly game that can be run on a web browser.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the Monopoly game board fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the Monopoly board layout with all 40 standard spaces (properties, utilities, railroads, chance/community chest, Go, Jail, etc.) through HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Check if property information (prices, rent structures, color groups) is correctly defined. Score 0 if the board is incomplete, 5 if basic layout exists but lacks details, 10 if the full Monopoly board with accurate property details is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Are the core Monopoly game mechanics implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate if the code includes essential game mechanics: dice rolling, player movement, property purchasing, rent collection, passing GO ($200), Chance/Community Chest cards, Jail mechanics, house/hotel building, and mortgaging properties. Deduct 2 points for each missing core mechanic. The full implementation should include proper turn management and transaction handling between players.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is player interaction and game flow properly managed?",
-      "description": "Check if the game flow follows Monopoly rules with clear turn progression: roll dice, move, land on space, take appropriate action, and end turn. Evaluate if the UI provides proper controls for each action (buy property, build houses, mortgage, trade, etc.). Deduct 3 points if turn sequence is incorrect, 3 points if core actions aren't available at appropriate times, and 4 points if important decision points lack user feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is multi-player functionality implemented?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the game supports 2-8 players as per standard Monopoly rules, with appropriate player setup, turn management, and transaction handling between players. Check if the game tracks player statistics (cash, properties owned, position) correctly. Score 0 if only single-player exists, 5 if basic multiplayer exists but with flaws, 10 if full multiplayer with proper turn handling and player interactions is implemented.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle edge cases like bankruptcy procedures, property auctions when players decline to buy, trading with negative cash balance, and unusual dice roll combinations. Code with strong robustness should validate all user inputs, prevent illegal moves, and maintain game state consistency. Give 10 points if these edge cases are handled properly, 5 points if partially handled, and 0 points if major game-breaking issues exist.",
-      "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. Game history/statistics visualization 2. Custom house rules options 3. Animated dice and player tokens 4. AI opponents with different strategies 5. Save/load functionality). 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 implementation of similar functions (e.g., multiple ways to handle the same game event) 2. Function modules unrelated to Monopoly (e.g., unrelated mini-games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow gameplay). 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 game logic/view/state management), code organization, and maintainability. Deduct 3 points if global state is poorly managed; deduct 3 points if code lacks comments or documentation; deduct 4 points if there's significant code duplication or spaghetti code. The full score is 10 points for clean, maintainable code with good separation of concerns.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the design follows Monopoly's traditional aesthetic while maintaining usability: 1) Appropriate color scheme matching traditional Monopoly colors 2) Clear property ownership indicators 3) Readable game information displays (cash, properties, current player). Deduct 3 points for cluttered UI, 3 points for poor readability of critical information, 4 points for confusing layout that impedes gameplay. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the game provides appropriate feedback for all actions: 1) Visual feedback for dice rolls and movements 2) Clear indicators for property purchases and rent payments 3) Smooth transitions between player turns. Deduct 3 points for delayed feedback on actions, 3 points for unclear turn transitions, 4 points if critical game events occur without appropriate visual/audio cues. The full score is 10 points for a game that maintains player awareness through appropriate feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-strategy/multi-faction-diplomacy-strategy-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 89,
-  "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 when possible.\n\nPlease implement a strategy game using HTML and JavaScript: Multiple Factions and Diplomatic System\n\n**Task**: Design a multi-faction system where players can engage in diplomacy, form alliances or wage war with other factions. Different diplomatic strategies will influence the game's outcome.\n\n**Hint**: You can use a diplomatic relations table to manage relationships between factions and adjust AI behavior based on player decisions.\n\nPlease include comments in your code to help other developers understand your implementation process.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the multi-faction system fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements distinct factions with unique attributes (resources, strengths, territories). Check if each faction has its own AI behavior patterns and strategic tendencies. Score 0 if factions are merely cosmetic, 5 if basic faction differences exist but lack strategic depth, and 10 if factions have meaningful gameplay differences with unique mechanics.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the diplomatic relations system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements a comprehensive diplomatic relations table that tracks relationships between all factions. Check for multiple relationship states (alliance, peace, tension, war, etc.) and proper transitioning mechanisms between states. Deduct 5 points if relationships are binary (ally/enemy only), 3 points if relationship changes lack proper conditions or consequences. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are diplomatic actions and negotiations implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes a range of diplomatic actions (trade agreements, alliances, non-aggression pacts, ultimatums, etc.) and a negotiation system where factions can propose and respond to diplomatic offers. Deduct 5 points if diplomatic actions are limited to basic declarations, 3 points if negotiations lack counteroffer capabilities. Score 10 points if the system includes complex diplomatic chains and conditional agreements.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the AI behavior properly responsive to diplomatic relationships?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the AI adapts its behavior based on diplomatic status and player decisions. The AI should consider diplomatic relationships when making strategic decisions about resource allocation, military movements, and diplomatic initiatives. Deduct 5 points if AI ignores relationships in decision-making, 3 points if AI responses are predictable or lack strategic depth. Give 10 points for sophisticated AI that considers complex diplomatic webs and adapts to changing circumstances.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid diplomatic actions, conflicting AI decisions, edge case diplomatic scenarios, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should be able to effectively handle these edge cases, giving 10 points. If the robustness is average, give 5 points, and if no exceptions are handled, give 0 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that are eye-catching?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes surprise features that enhance the experience (e.g., 1. Dynamic reputation system that affects diplomatic options 2. Historical grudges/favors that persist across game sessions 3. Secret diplomatic channels with concealed information). 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 diplomatic actions (e.g., multiple alliance formation mechanisms) 2. Function modules unrelated to diplomacy or strategy (e.g., unnecessary minigames) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations when forming alliances). 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 diplomacy logic/visualization/AI decision-making layers), unit test coverage, and build process automation. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if the build process is not automated. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the overall design follows modern design principles: 1) Harmonious color matching (no more than 3 primary colors per faction, with clear faction identification) 2) Proper layout spacing (diplomatic interface elements follow the 8px multiple principle) 3) Professional font system (body font size ≥ 14px, line height over 1.5 times). Deduct 3 points for each crowded diplomatic menu, 5 points for confusing faction visual indicators, and 5 points for chaotic diplomatic status representation. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the diplomatic interaction smooth and intuitive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the diplomatic system is intuitive to use and provides clear feedback: 1) Diplomatic action feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Clear visual representation of diplomatic status changes 3) Intuitive pathways for proposing and responding to diplomatic offers. Deduct 5 points for each diplomatic action without clear feedback, 3 points for confusing relationship status indicators, and 5 points for diplomatic options that are difficult to discover. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "medium"
-}

package/library/game_development-strategy/multiplayer-battles-network-synchronization.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 135,
-  "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.\n\nPlease use HTML and JavaScript to implement a card/board game: multiplayer battles with network synchronization.\n\n**Task**: Implement a multiplayer battle system where players can compete with other players in real-time via network, with synchronized game states.\n\n**Hint**: You can use network synchronization technology to maintain consistency of the game state and handle network latency.\n\nImplement the game and include some comments in the code to help other developers understand your implementation process.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the multiplayer battle system core logic fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the battle mechanics through HTML/JavaScript, including turn management, player actions, win/loss conditions, and game rule enforcement. Check if battle state transitions are properly handled and if all game actions are validated. Score 0 if core battle logic is missing, 5 if only basic turn-based mechanics are implemented, and 10 if complete battle system with all rules and edge cases are covered.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the network synchronization mechanism properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the network synchronization uses WebSocket or similar real-time communication protocol with proper message serialization/deserialization. Check for conflict resolution mechanisms when simultaneous actions occur, and whether the system handles out-of-order message delivery. Deduct 5 points if no conflict resolution exists, 3 points if message ordering is not guaranteed. Full score requires robust synchronization with state consistency verification.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is network latency compensation and prediction implemented?",
-      "description": "Check whether the system implements client-side prediction, lag compensation, and rollback mechanisms to handle network delays. Evaluate if the system provides smooth user experience despite network latency through techniques like input buffering or interpolation. Deduct 5 points if no latency compensation exists, 3 points if prediction accuracy is poor. Full score requires sophisticated latency handling with seamless user experience.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the multiplayer session management complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the code includes comprehensive session management: player matchmaking, room creation/joining, player disconnection handling, and game state persistence. Check for reconnection capabilities and spectator support. Deduct 5 points if session persistence is missing, 3 points if disconnection recovery is incomplete. Give 10 points if full session lifecycle is managed with graceful error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as network interruption, invalid player inputs, server timeouts, concurrent action conflicts, etc.) and provide friendly error prompts or recovery mechanisms. Code with strong robustness should effectively handle edge cases and maintain game integrity under stress conditions. Give 10 points for excellent error handling, 5 points for basic exception handling, and 0 points if no error handling exists.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 5,
-      "title": "Are there any innovative features that enhance gameplay?",
-      "description": "Check whether the code includes compelling features that improve user experience (e.g., 1. Real-time spectator mode with commentary 2. Replay system with action timeline 3. Advanced matchmaking with skill ratings 4. In-game communication tools). Add 3 points for each well-implemented innovative feature that adds genuine value to the multiplayer experience (maximum 10 points).",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 6,
-      "title": "Are there any redundant features?",
-      "description": "Strictly check three types of redundancy: 1. Duplicate network communication logic or redundant synchronization mechanisms 2. Unnecessary UI components unrelated to core gameplay 3. Performance-heavy visual effects that don't contribute to user experience. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if redundant code interferes with core multiplayer functionality or network performance.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular architecture (separation of game logic, network layer, UI components), code organization, and maintainability. Check for proper error logging, configuration management, and scalability considerations. Deduct 5 points if network and game logic are tightly coupled; deduct 5 points if code duplication exceeds 25%; deduct 5 points if no separation of concerns exists. Full score requires clean architecture with proper abstraction layers.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface design meet professional gaming standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the UI follows modern game interface principles: 1) Clear visual hierarchy with consistent color scheme (max 4 primary colors) 2) Intuitive layout with proper spacing (elements follow 8px grid system) 3) Readable typography (game text ≥ 14px, UI elements ≥ 12px, line height ≥ 1.4). Deduct 3 points for cluttered interface elements, 5 points for poor color contrast or readability issues, and 5 points for confusing navigation or information architecture.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Are the real-time interactions smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether multiplayer interactions meet real-time gaming standards: 1) Input response time ≤ 50ms for local actions 2) Network action feedback within 200ms 3) Smooth animation transitions (200-400ms duration) 4) Clear visual indicators for multiplayer state changes. Deduct 5 points for each unresponsive interaction, 3 points for laggy animations during network updates, and 5 points if multiplayer state changes lack visual feedback.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-strategy/multiplayer-cooperative-mode-implementation.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 31,
-  "question": "You are a code expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate, professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable.\n\nPlease use HTML and JavaScript to implement a multiplayer cooperative mode.\n\n**Task**: Implement a multiplayer cooperative mode allowing multiple players to complete tasks together.\n\n**Hint**: You can use network communication to synchronize actions between players and design levels suitable for multiplayer cooperation.\n\nPlease include comments in your code to help other developers understand your implementation process.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the multiplayer cooperative foundation implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code establishes the core multiplayer structure through HTML/JavaScript, including player representation, shared game state, and basic interaction mechanisms. Score 0 if multiplayer functionality is absent, 5 if only basic player representation exists, and 10 if the system properly manages multiple simultaneous players with distinct roles or capabilities.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the network communication for player synchronization implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code includes WebSocket/WebRTC implementation with proper state synchronization between players. Look for connection handling, data serialization, and conflict resolution. Deduct 5 points if there's no reconnection mechanism, 3 points if latency handling is missing, and 5 points if the synchronization is one-way only. Full score requires bidirectional real-time updates with error handling.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Are cooperative gameplay mechanics implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code implements true cooperative mechanics requiring multiple players working together (e.g., one player holding a door while another passes through, players combining abilities, or shared resource management). Score 0 if no cooperative mechanics exist, 5 if basic interactions between players are possible, and 10 if the gameplay genuinely requires coordination and cannot be completed alone.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is level design or task structure suitable for multiplayer cooperation?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the implemented levels/tasks are specifically designed for multiplayer interaction with clear cooperative objectives. Check for player-specific roles, complementary abilities, or puzzles requiring multiple participants. Deduct 5 points if levels can be completed solo, 3 points if cooperative elements feel artificially inserted. The full score requires thoughtfully designed challenges that naturally encourage teamwork.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as out-of-bounds input, network interruption, player joining/leaving mid-game, 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 cooperative experience (e.g., 1. Real-time voice/text chat integration 2. Dynamic difficulty scaling based on player count 3. Asymmetric player roles with unique interfaces). 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 communication channels doing the same thing) 2. Function modules unrelated to multiplayer cooperation (e.g., complex single-player features) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance for all connected players. Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core multiplayer functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating game logic/view/network layers), code comments as requested in the requirements, and maintainable architecture. 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 code comments are missing or unhelpful. 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) Clear visual distinction between different players and their actions. Deduct 3 points for each confusing player representation, 5 points for unclear action feedback, and 5 points for interfaces that don't clearly communicate cooperative requirements. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the multiplayer interaction smooth and responsive?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the multiplayer experience is fluid and responsive: 1) Player actions visible to others within 200ms 2) Clear visual/audio cues when coordination is required or achieved 3) Graceful handling of network hiccups without disrupting gameplay flow. Deduct 5 points for laggy interactions, 3 points for missing cooperative success feedback, and 5 points for coordination mechanics that feel unresponsive. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-strategy/northern-expedition-monopoly-game-html.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 282,
-  "question": "You are a coding expert. Please use your professional knowledge to generate accurate and professional responses. Make sure the code you generate is executable. Help me design a \"Northern Expedition Monopoly\" game programming in HTML format, with detailed specifications.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core Monopoly game mechanics fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the monopoly board with property acquisition, movement mechanics, and token handling through HTML/JavaScript. Score 0 if the core game loop isn't implemented, 5 if only basic movement is implemented, and 10 if property ownership, rent collection, and special tile actions (like chance cards, jail) are fully included with Northern Expedition theme integration.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the Northern Expedition theme properly integrated?",
-      "description": "Check whether the historical context of the Northern Expedition (1926-1928) is accurately represented in the game elements. Properties should reflect historical locations, cards should include period-appropriate events, and visual elements should match the historical setting. Deduct 5 points if the theme is superficial, 3 points if historical inaccuracies are present. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the game state management effectively implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code includes complete game state tracking (player turns, property ownership, money, position) and persistence between turns. Check if state changes are properly triggered by player actions and if the game state can be saved/loaded. Deduct 5 points if state management is buggy, and 3 points if there's no save/load functionality. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the player interaction system intuitive and complete?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the game provides clear UI elements for player actions (rolling dice, buying properties, ending turns, trading) and if feedback is provided for all actions. Check if the game supports multiple players and handles player turns correctly. Deduct 5 points if core actions are missing UI elements, 3 points if player feedback is unclear. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as invalid moves, unexpected user inputs, browser compatibility issues, 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. Historical events that affect gameplay 2. Character selection with different abilities based on historical figures 3. Dynamic board that evolves with game progress). 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 handle the same game event) 2. Function modules unrelated to the Northern Expedition Monopoly theme (e.g., irrelevant mini-games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive animations that slow gameplay). 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 game logic/view/controller layers), reusability of components, and code maintainability. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or design patterns are not used; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if there are no comments or documentation. 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 while incorporating period-appropriate aesthetics: 1) Harmonious color matching that evokes 1920s China 2) Proper layout spacing (element spacing follows the 8px multiple principle) 3) Typography that balances readability with period-appropriate styling. Deduct 3 points for each crowded visual element, 5 points for a glaring color combination, and 5 points for chaotic text-image layout. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the dynamic effects conform to human perception characteristics: 1) Click feedback delay ≤ 100ms 2) Transition animation duration controlled between 300-500ms 3) Clear visual focus guidance for whose turn it is and what actions are available. Deduct 5 points for each operation without feedback, 3 points for animation stuttering during dice rolls or token movement, and 5 points for hard-to-find key function buttons. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-strategy/plants-vs-zombies-browser-game.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 377,
-  "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 demonstrable. Create a Plants vs. Zombies code that can run directly in a browser. No computer operations needed, just a link that can be run in a browser.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core Plants vs. Zombies game mechanics fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Review whether the code accurately implements the essential game mechanics including plant placement, zombie movement, sun collection, and combat interactions. Score 0 if core gameplay is missing, 5 if only basic elements exist, and 10 if the implementation includes multiple plant types, zombie varieties, and proper collision detection.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Does the game include a complete level progression system?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the game includes multiple levels with increasing difficulty, different zombie waves, and a level completion system. Deduct 5 points if there's only a single level, 3 points if difficulty progression is missing. Full score requires at least 3 distinct levels with proper wave management.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the resource management system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the sun collection mechanic works correctly, plants have appropriate costs, and cooldown timers function as expected. Score 0 if resource management is absent, 5 if basic sun collection exists but lacks cooldowns, and 10 if all resource aspects (sun generation, collection, plant costs, and cooldowns) are properly balanced.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the browser compatibility and performance optimized?",
-      "description": "Assess whether the game runs smoothly in multiple browsers without lag, maintains consistent frame rates even with many entities, and uses proper performance optimization techniques. Deduct 5 points for noticeable lag with 10+ entities on screen, 3 points if the game doesn't work in at least 3 major browsers, and 5 points if animation frame handling is inefficient.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as rapid clicking, out-of-bounds placement attempts, browser resizing, etc.) and provide friendly error handling. 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. Special power-ups 2. Weather effects impacting gameplay 3. Mobile touch optimizations 4. Achievement system). 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 hit detection systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to PvZ gameplay (e.g., unnecessary mini-games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle systems). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating game logic/view/entities), asset management, and code organization patterns. 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 asset loading is not optimized. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visual design matches the original game's aesthetic while following modern design principles: 1) Consistent art style for plants and zombies 2) Clear visual distinction between game elements 3) Readable UI elements and proper scaling across screen sizes. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent art styles, 5 points for unclear visual hierarchy, and 5 points for unresponsive layouts. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the game interactions feel responsive and intuitive: 1) Plants place immediately on valid click 2) Zombies move smoothly with proper animations 3) Sun collection feels satisfying with visual/audio feedback. Deduct 5 points for delayed plant placement (>200ms), 3 points for jerky zombie movement, and 5 points for unresponsive sun collection. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}

package/library/game_development-strategy/plants-vs-zombies-game-html.json

@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
-{
-  "index": 340,
-  "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. Please help me create a Plants vs. Zombies game using HTML, with all code saved in a single HTML file.",
-  "checklist": [
-    {
-      "id": 0,
-      "title": "Is the core game mechanics fully implemented?",
-      "description": "Check if the code implements the core gameplay mechanics of Plants vs. Zombies: plant placement, zombie movement, sun resource collection, and proper collision detection. Score 0 if these fundamentals are missing, 5 if only basic mechanics work, and 10 if it includes special plant abilities (like pea shooters, sunflowers, wall-nuts) and different zombie types with varying behaviors and health values.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 1,
-      "title": "Is the game grid system properly implemented?",
-      "description": "Verify the lawn grid implementation (typically 5×9 or similar), whether plants can be placed correctly in grid cells, and if zombies follow proper lane-based movement. Check if the coordinate system handles collisions accurately and if visual elements align with their logical positions. Deduct 5 points if grid alignment is inconsistent, 3 points if placement validation is missing, and give 10 points for a completely functional grid with proper validation.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 2,
-      "title": "Is the resource management system implemented?",
-      "description": "Evaluate the sun resource collection and spending mechanism, cooldown timers for plant selection, and plant card selection interface. Check if sun drops automatically and/or from sunflowers, if collection requires user interaction, and if resource costs are balanced. Deduct 4 points if sun collection is missing, 3 points if cooldowns aren't implemented, and 3 points if the plant selection UI is non-functional.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 3,
-      "title": "Is the wave management and game progression implemented?",
-      "description": "Analyze the zombie wave spawning system, difficulty progression, and win/lose conditions. Verify if zombie waves increase in difficulty over time, if there's a proper level end mechanism, and if the game detects when zombies reach the player's house. Deduct 4 points if wave progression is static or missing, 3 points if winning/losing conditions aren't defined, and 3 points if the difficulty never increases.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 4,
-      "title": "Is the code robust?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the code can handle common abnormal situations (such as rapid clicking, browser resizing, extreme game states) and provide friendly error handling. Code with strong robustness should prevent game-breaking exploits like placing plants without sufficient resources or off-grid. Give 10 points for comprehensive error handling, 5 points for basic validations, and 0 points if the game 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. Level editor 2. Special power-ups or abilities 3. Day/night cycle affecting gameplay). 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 collision detection systems) 2. Function modules unrelated to PvZ (e.g., unrelated mini-games) 3. Fancy effects that affect performance (e.g., excessive particle effects). Deduct 3 points for each redundancy found, and directly deduct 10 points if the core functions are interfered with by redundant code.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 7,
-      "title": "Does the code have engineering quality?",
-      "description": "Review modular design (such as separating game logic/view/animation layers), code organization, and performance optimization. Deduct 5 points if global state pollution is found or if game objects aren't properly encapsulated; deduct 5 points if the code duplication rate is too high (over 30%); deduct 5 points if no performance considerations are made (e.g., inefficient loops or animations). The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 8,
-      "title": "Does the interface vision meet professional design standards?",
-      "description": "Evaluate whether the visual design resembles the original PvZ game's aesthetic while maintaining modern design principles: 1) Consistent art style for plants, zombies, and background 2) Proper UI layout with clear plant selection area, sun counter, and game field 3) Appropriate use of color and contrast for gameplay clarity. Deduct 3 points for inconsistent art style, 5 points for cluttered or confusing UI, and 5 points for poor visual hierarchy. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    },
-    {
-      "id": 9,
-      "title": "Is the dynamic interaction smooth and seamless?",
-      "description": "Judge whether the game animations and interactions feel responsive and satisfying: 1) Plants have planting animations 2) Zombies have walking and attack animations 3) Projectiles show smooth movement with collision effects. Deduct 3 points for static or missing plant animations, 3 points for zombie movement without proper animation, and 4 points for absent or glitchy collision feedback. The full score is 10 points.",
-      "maxScore": 10
-    }
-  ],
-  "class": "Game Development-Strategy",
-  "difficulty": "hard"
-}