Datasets:
license: mit
task_categories:
- text-generation
language:
- en
pretty_name: LeetCode Code-Gen (JavaScript)
size_categories:
- n<1K
tags:
- code
- javascript
- leetcode
- algorithms
- code-generation
- competitive-programming
- instruction-tuning
- sft
LeetCode Code-Gen Dataset — JavaScript
631 rows. Given a problem statement, its input/output examples, and a required algorithm/technique, generate a correct JavaScript solution.
Part of a 4-language collection built from the same source: see the sibling Python, Java, C++, and JavaScript datasets.
Verification
Not execution-verified. There is currently no compiler/runtime harness for this language in the build pipeline (only Python has one). Rows are extracted directly from named solution approaches in doocs/leetcode, a well-maintained community solutions repo, so correctness is likely but not guaranteed. Treat this the way you'd treat any unverified scraped code dataset.
Source
Extracted from doocs/leetcode, which documents multiple named solution approaches per problem (e.g. "Dynamic Programming", "Two Pointers", "Divide and Conquer") -- this is what makes per-row algorithm labeling possible, since the same problem can appear multiple times with a different technique and different code each time.
Fields
| field | description |
|---|---|
slug |
LeetCode problem slug |
solution_id |
unique id: problem + approach index + language |
primary_algorithm |
normalized algorithm/technique label |
verified |
true/false for Python (execution-checked), null for other languages |
messages |
chat-format (system/user/assistant), ready for SFT |
Example row
{
"slug": "house-robber",
"primary_algorithm": "Dynamic Programming",
"messages": [
{"role": "system", "content": "You are a competitive programming assistant..."},
{"role": "user", "content": "### Problem\n...\n### Algorithm\nDynamic Programming"},
{"role": "assistant", "content": "```javascript\n...\n```"}
]
}
Known gaps
- SQL/database problems excluded (wrong problem type for a code-execution harness)
- Design/class problems (LRU Cache, iterators) excluded -- they need a sequence of method calls to test, not a single input -> output check
- Some
Brute Forcelabels are a fallback where the source didn't name a specific technique for that approach